Monday Volume 587 27 October 2014 No. 50

HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)

Monday 27 October 2014

£5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2014 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT

MEMBERS OF THE CABINET

(FORMED BY THE RT HON.,MP,MAY 2010) PRIME MINISTER,FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY AND MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE—The Rt Hon. David Cameron, MP DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL—The Rt Hon. Nick Clegg, MP FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE AND LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS—The Rt Hon. William Hague CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER—The Rt Hon. , MP CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY—The Rt Hon. Danny Alexander, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS—The Rt Hon. Philip Hammond, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT—The Rt Hon. Theresa May, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE—The Rt Hon. Michael Fallon, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR BUSINESS,INNOVATION AND SKILLS AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE—The Rt Hon. Vince Cable, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS—The Rt Hon. Iain Duncan Smith, MP LORD CHANCELLOR AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE—The Rt Hon. Chris Grayling, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND MINISTER FOR WOMEN AND EQUALITIES—The Rt Hon. , MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT—The Rt Hon. Eric Pickles, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH—The Rt Hon. Jeremy Hunt, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT,FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS—The Rt Hon. Elizabeth Truss, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT—The Rt Hon. Justine Greening, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND—The Rt Hon. Alistair Carmichael, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE—The Rt Hon. Edward Davey, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT—The Rt Hon. Patrick McLoughlin, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CULTURE,MEDIA AND SPORT—The Rt Hon. Sajid Javid, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND—The Rt Hon. Theresa Villiers, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WALES—The Rt Hon. Stephen Crabb, MP

DEPARTMENTS OF STATE AND MINISTERS Business, Innovation and Skills— SECRETARY OF STATE AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE—The Rt Hon. Vince Cable, MP MINISTERS OF STATE— The Rt Hon. , MP (Minister for Universities, Science and Cities) § Nick Boles, MP (Minister for Skills and Equalities) § The Rt Hon. Matthew Hancock, MP (Minister for Business and Enterprise) § Edward Vaizey, MP (Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy)§ Lord Livingston of Parkhead (Minister for Trade and Investment) § PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— George Freeman § Jo Swinson, MP § Baroness Neville-Rolfe, DBE, CMG Cabinet Office— MINISTER FOR THE CABINET OFFICE AND PAYMASTER GENERAL—The Rt Hon. Francis Maude, MP MINISTER FOR GOVERNMENT POLICY AND CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER—The Rt Hon. , MP MINISTERS OF STATE— The Rt Hon. David Laws, MP § The Rt Hon. Greg Clark, MP § Joseph Johnson, MP PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY— Sam Gyimah, MP § Rob Wilson, MP (Minister for Civil Society) MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO—The Rt Hon. Grant Shapps, MP Communities and Local Government— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Eric Pickles, MP MINISTER OF STATE—Brandon Lewis, MP PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— Stephen Williams, MP Kris Hopkins, MP , MP Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon ii HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT—cont.

Culture, Media and Sport— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Sajid Javid, MP MINISTER FOR CULTURE AND THE DIGITAL ECONOMY—Edward Vaizey, MP § PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE—Helen Grant, MP Defence— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Michael Fallon, MP MINISTERS OF STATE— The Rt Hon. Mark Francois, MP (Minister for the Armed Forces) Anna Soubry, MP PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— Philip Dunne, MP Julian Brazier, MP Lord Astor of Hever, DL Education— SECRETARY OF STATE AND MINISTER FOR WOMEN AND EQUALITIES—The Rt Hon. Nicky Morgan, MP MINISTERS OF STATE— The Rt Hon. David Laws, MP (Minister for Schools) § , MP Nick Boles, MP (Minister for Skills and Equalities) § PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— Edward Timpson, MP Sam Gyimah, MP § Lord Nash PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WOMEN AND EQUALITIES—Jo Swinson, MP § Energy and Climate Change— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Edward Davey, MP MINISTER OF STATE— The Rt Hon. Matthew Hancock, MP § PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— Amber Rudd, MP Baroness Verma Environment, Food and Rural Affairs— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Elizabeth Truss, MP PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— George Eustice, MP Dan Rogerson, MP Lord de Mauley, TD Foreign and Commonwealth Office— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Philip Hammond, MP MINISTERS OF STATE— The Rt Hon. David Lidington, MP (Minister for Europe) The Rt Hon. Hugo Swire, MP Lord Livingston of Parkhead § The Rt Hon. Baroness Anelay of St Johns, DBE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— James Duddridge, MP Tobias Ellwood, MP Health— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Jeremy Hunt, MP MINISTER OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Norman Lamb, MP PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— Daniel Poulter, MP George Freeman § Jane Ellison, MP The Rt Hon. Earl Howe Home Office— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Theresa May, MP MINISTERS OF STATE— The Rt Hon. Norman Baker, MP (Minister for Crime Prevention) James Brokenshire (Minister for Security and Immigration) The Rt Hon. Mike Penning, MP (Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims) § PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— Karen Bradley, MP Lord Bates HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT—cont. iii

International Development— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Justine Greening, MP MINISTER OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Desmond Swayne, MP PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE— The Rt Hon. Lynne Featherstone, MP Justice— LORD CHANCELLOR AND SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Chris Grayling, MP MINISTERS OF STATE— The Rt Hon. Simon Hughes, MP The Rt Hon. Mike Penning, MP (Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims) § Lord Faulks PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— Shailesh Vara, MP Andrew Selous, MP § Law Officers— ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The Rt Hon. Jeremy Wright, QC, MP SOLICITOR-GENERAL—Robert Buckland, QC, MP ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND—The Rt Hon. Lord Wallace of Tankerness, QC § Leader of the House of Commons— FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE AND LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS—The Rt Hon. William Hague, MP DEPUTY LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS—The Rt Hon. Tom Brake, MP Northern Ireland— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Theresa Villiers, MP PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE—Andrew Murrison, MP Privy Council Office— DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL—The Rt Hon. Nick Clegg, MP Scotland Office— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Alistair Carmichael, MP PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. David Mundell, MP Transport— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Patrick McLoughlin, MP MINISTERS OF STATE— Baroness Kramer The Rt Hon. John Hayes, MP PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— Robert Goodwill, MP Claire Perry, MP Treasury— PRIME MINISTER,FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY AND MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE—The Rt Hon. David Cameron, MP CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER—The Rt Hon. George Osborne, MP CHIEF SECRETARY—The Rt Hon. Danny Alexander, MP FINANCIAL SECRETARY—David Gauke, MP EXCHEQUER SECRETARY—Priti Patel, MP ECONOMIC SECRETARY—Andrea Leadsom, MP COMMERCIAL SECRETARY—Lord Deighton, KBE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY—The Rt Hon. , MP LORDS COMMISSIONERS— Mark Lancaster, MP David Evennett, MP John Penrose, MP Gavin Barwell, MP Harriett Baldwin, MP Alun Cairns, MP § ASSISTANT WHIPS— Andrew Selous, MP § Thérèse Coffey, MP Mel Stride, MP Ben Wallace, MP Damian Hinds, MP Jenny Willott, MP iv HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT—cont.

Wales Office— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Stephen Crabb, MP PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE Alun Cairns, MP § Baroness Randerson Work and Pensions— SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Iain Duncan Smith, MP MINISTERS OF STATE— The Rt Hon. Esther McVey, MP (Minister for Employment) The Rt Hon. Steve Webb, MP (Minister for Pensions) Mark Harper, MP PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— Lord Freud Office of the Leader of the House of Lords— LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND LORD PRIVY SEAL—The Rt. Hon. Baroness Stowell of Beeston, MBE DEPUTY LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS—The Rt. Hon. Lord Wallace of Tankerness § Her Majesty’s Household— LORD CHAMBERLAIN—The Rt Hon. Earl Peel, GCVO, DL LORD STEWARD—The Earl of Dalhousie MASTER OF THE HORSE—Lord Vestey, KCVO TREASURER—The Rt Hon. Greg Hands, MP COMPTROLLER—The Rt Hon. Don Foster, MP VICE-CHAMBERLAIN—Anne Milton, MP CAPTAIN OF THE HONOURABLE CORPS OF GENTLEMEN-AT-ARMS—Lord Taylor of Holbeach, CBE CAPTAIN OF THE QUEEN’S BODYGUARD OF THE YEOMEN OF THE GUARD—The Rt Hon. Lord Newby, OBE BARONESSES IN WAITING—Baroness Northover, Baroness Jolly, Baroness Williams of Trafford LORDS IN WAITING—Lord Gardiner of Kimble, The Rt Hon. Lord Wallace of Saltaire, Lord Popat, Lord Ashton of Hyde, Lord Bourne § Members of the Government listed under more than one Department

SECOND CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSIONER, REPRESENTING CHURCH COMMISSIONERS—The Rt Hon. Sir Tony Baldry, MP HOUSE OF COMMONS THE SPEAKER—The Rt Hon. John Bercow, MP CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS—The Rt Hon. Lindsay Hoyle, MP FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS—Mrs Eleanor Laing, MP SECOND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS—The Rt Hon. Dawn Primarolo, MP PANEL OF CHAIRS Mr David Amess, MP, Hugh Bayley, MP, Mr Joe Benton, MP, Mr Clive Betts, MP, Mr Peter Bone, MP, Mr Graham Brady, MP, The Rt Hon.Annette Brooke, MP, Martin Caton, MP, Mr Christopher Chope, MP, Katy Clark, MP, Mr David Crausby, MP, Philip Davies, MP, Nadine Dorries, MP, Sir Roger Gale, MP, Mr James Gray, MP, Mr Dai Havard, MP, Mr Philip Hollobone, MP, Mr Jim Hood, MP, The Rt Hon. George Howarth, MP, Sir Edward Leigh, MP, Dr William McCrea, MP, Miss Anne McIntosh, MP, Mrs Anne Main, MP, Sir Alan Meale, MP, Sandra Osborne, MP, Albert Owen, MP, Mark Pritchard, MP, Mrs Linda Riordan, MP, John Robertson, MP, Andrew Rosindell, MP, Mr Adrian Sanders, MP, Jim Sheridan, MP, Mr Gary Streeter, MP, Mr Andrew Turner, MP, Mr Charles Walker, MP, Mr Mike Weir, MP, Hywel Williams, MP SECRETARY—Matthew Hamlyn HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION The Rt Hon. The Speaker (Chairman), Sir Paul Beresford, MP, Mr Frank Doran, MP, Ms Angela Eagle, MP, The Rt Hon. William Hague, MP, The Rt Hon. John Thurso, MP SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION—Robert Twigger ASSISTANT SECRETARY—Sarah Heath ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATE AUDIT COMMITTEE Dame Janet Gaymer, DBE (Chair), Ms Angela Eagle, MP, The Rt Hon. Sir Alan Haselhurst, MP, The Rt Hon. John Thurso, MP, Stephen Brooker, Barbara Scott SECRETARY OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE—Ben Williams LIAISON COMMITTEE The Rt Hon. Sir Alan Beith, MP (Chair), Mr Graham Allen, MP, Mr Adrian Bailey, MP, The Rt Hon. Kevin Barron, MP, Dame Anne Begg, MP, Mr Clive Betts, MP, The Rt Hon. Sir Malcolm Bruce, MP, Sir William Cash, MP, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, MP, Mr Ian Davidson, MP, DavidTCDavies, MP, Mrs Louise Ellman, MP, Natascha Engel, MP, Dr Hywel Francis, MP, The Rt Hon. Sir Alan Haselhurst, MP, The Rt Hon. Margaret Hodge, MP, Mr Bernard Jenkin, MP, Miss Anne McIntosh, MP, Andrew Miller, MP, Mr George Mudie, MP, Sir Richard Ottaway, MP, Mr Laurence Robertson, MP, Mr Lee Scott, MP, Rory Stewart, MP, Mr Graham Stuart, MP, The Rt Hon. John Thurso, MP, Mr Andrew Tyrie, MP, The Rt Hon. Keith Vaz, MP, Mr Charles Walker, MP, Joan Walley, MP, Mr John Whittingdale, MP, Dr Sarah Wollaston, MP, Mr Tim Yeo, MP CLERKS—Andrew Kennon, Philippa Helme MANAGEMENT BOARD David Natzler (Acting Clerk of the House), Jacqy Sharpe (Acting Clerk Assistant and Acting Director General, Chamber and Committee Services), Andrew Walker (Director General, HR and Change), John Borley, CB (Director General, Facilities), Myfanwy Barrett (Director of Finance), John Benger (Acting Head of the Department of Information Services), Matthew Taylor (Acting Head of Parliamentary ICT), Dame Janet Gaymer, DBE (External Member), Barbara Scott (External Member) SECRETARY OF THE MANAGEMENT BOARD—Tom Goldsmith SPEAKER’S SECRETARY—Peter Barratt SPEAKER’S COUNSEL—Michael Carpenter, CB SPEAKER’S CHAPLAIN—Rev. Rose Hudson-Wilkin PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR STANDARDS—Kathryn Hudson PARLIAMENTARY SECURITY DIRECTOR—Paul Martin, CBE

27 October 2014

THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES OFFICIAL REPORT

IN THE FOURTH SESSION OF THE FIFTY-FIFTH PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND [WHICH OPENED 18 MAY 2010]

SIXTY-THIRD YEAR OF THE REIGN OF HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II

SIXTH SERIES VOLUME 587 SIXTH VOLUME OF SESSION 2014-15

so that they can enter apprenticeships, and will he agree House of Commons to meet some of my colleges and providers about that subject? Monday 27 October 2014 Nick Boles: I am certainly happy to congratulate any authority that itself takes on apprentices. We all need to The House met at half-past Two o’clock set an example in all parts of Government and indeed in this House, as many Members are doing. Of course I would be happy to meet my right hon. Friend. I hope PRAYERS that he will welcome the traineeships programme, which was introduced by this Government specifically to provide [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] people in that age group with a stepping stone to an apprenticeship or to a job. Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): Despite the Minister’s opening statement, fewer than one in 10 employers in England offer apprenticeships, which must Oral Answers to Questions surely be improved upon. Labour will ensure that all public sector contracts worth more than £1 million require the contractor to take on apprentices. That was EDUCATION the subject of my private Member’s Bill, which, sadly, was blocked by Ministers. Why do Ministers not wake up, smell the coffee and realise that that is the best bang The Secretary of State was asked— for the buck of public procurement contracts? Apprenticeships Nick Boles: Well, of course I am sure that the hon. Gentleman meant to congratulate the Government on 1. Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD): What our fantastic achievement in creating far more recent progress her Department has made on increasing apprenticeships. They are real apprenticeships—those the number and quality of apprenticeships. [905628] that involve a job and last more than 12 months—unlike the ones that his Government produced. He is right that The Minister for Skills and Equalities (Nick Boles): we need many more employers, public and private, to We have already delivered over 1.9 million apprenticeships want to create apprenticeships. The way to do that is during this Parliament, and are on track to achieve our not to force them to do so, but to make it attractive to ambition of 2 million apprenticeship starts. We are them to do so. That is why we are introducing new working with groups of employers to develop new incentives through the apprenticeship grant, and why trailblazer standards, and last week we launched the we are putting employers in charge of the standard of latest set of trailblazers in sectors ranging from the an apprenticeship so that they know it will be useful to nuclear industry to TV production and fashion. them and not just some bureaucratic tick box. Sir Andrew Stunell: Will the Minister join me in Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): In my commending Stockport council and employers in Stockport constituency of Wimbledon, we have woken up and on the record numbers of apprentices that have been smelt the coffee. Will the Minister join me in welcoming recruited? Does he, however, recognise that there is an the Take One initiative under which Merton chamber of increasing need for pre-apprenticeship help for 16-year-olds commerce, following on from the Government, is brokering 3 Oral Answers27 OCTOBER 2014 Oral Answers 4 relationships between apprenticeships and training providers Qualified Teacher Status and firms, with 150 extra people taking an apprenticeship this year as a result of that scheme? 3. John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab): What assessment she has made of the effect of her Nick Boles: I strongly welcome that scheme and any Department’s policy on qualified teacher status on other scheme that tries to make it easier—particularly educational outcomes. [905630] for small employers, who sometimes face some level of risk—to take on an apprentice. There are all sorts of The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan): schemes, and I congratulate the one in my hon. Friend’s Pupils have the best chance ever of attending a good or constituency. outstanding school. That is thanks, in no small part, to the quality of the teachers in those schools. In fact, the number of teachers who do not hold degrees has fallen Schools in Special Measures by almost half since 2010. Our policy is to put our trust in the professionalism of head teachers, who are best placed to recognise outstanding teaching and recruit 2. Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): What recent steps the best possible teachers for their schools. her Department has taken to improve schools which have been placed in special measures. [905629] John Robertson: Perhaps the Secretary of State could clarify which of the eight requirements in the 2011 The Minister of State, Department for Education teaching standards should not apply to every teacher in (Mr Nick Gibb): We act swiftly to tackle failure. If a every classroom? local authority maintained school goes into special measures, Department for Education officials contact it Nicky Morgan: I note that, as a Scottish Member of within five days of being notified, and begin to work Parliament, the hon. Gentleman is asking about English with it towards becoming a sponsored academy. Since educational standards, but I am happy to answer his 2010, we have opened 1,042 sponsored academies, which question. I wondered whether he might apply for the have nearly all resulted from this process. If an academy job of the Labour party’s leader in Scotland, but I see goes into special measures, the regional schools that he is here. There are fewer unqualified teachers in commissioner responds equally swiftly. state-funded schools than there were in 2010. The Government trust head teachers to get in the best Charlie Elphicke: Is the Minister aware of the striking possible people to broaden young minds. progress that has been made at Deal’s Castle community academy in just a few short months, thanks to strong Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): Does the intervention by his Department? Will a decision on Secretary of State not agree that, up and down the land, sponsorship for the academy be made soon? there are some outstanding and inspiring teachers who do not hold professional qualifications? The hon. Member Mr Gibb: I know that my hon. Friend has worked for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), for example, tirelessly behind the scenes to ensure early resolution of brags that he sometimes teaches in Stoke schools when the problems the school has faced since it went into they allow him and that he has taught a primary school special measures. We are working closely with the Castle about the armada, of all things. Is he really the sort of Community Trust, and on securing a strong sponsor for person who should not be allowed into a school? the school quickly. Ofsted’s monitoring inspection on 10 September confirmed that the academy’s plans are fit Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend tempts me to speculate for purpose, and that necessary improvements are being on the shadow Secretary of State’s qualifications to made. teach in schools. He is absolutely right that it is for heads and teachers to decide who is best qualified to Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab): Schools in special teach in their schools. In state funded schools, 96% of measures should demand the highest possible standards teachers hold qualified teacher status. The figure is 97% of their teachers, but the 2011 teaching standards do in maintained schools and 95% in academies. not apply to such schools if they are academies or free schools. The standards include things such as the Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab): Last management of behaviour. Is it not more important week, I visited schools in Warrington, Chester and than ever that the standards should apply to schools Milton Keynes. Will the Secretary of State tell the when they are in special measures, whatever their governance House why children in those places do not deserve to be arrangements? taught by teachers who can “Adapt teaching to respond to the strengths and needs of all Mr Gibb: I do not think that the hon. Lady is right. pupils”; The teaching standards apply to all qualified teachers. who can “Manage behaviour effectively”; and who can If she is referring to the issue of qualified teacher status, “be aware of pupils’ capabilities…and plan teaching to build on she should be aware that the vast majority of teachers in these”? academies are qualified teachers and so are required to abide by the teaching standards. Even for teachers who Nicky Morgan: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman are not qualified, who might be lecturers from universities should stick, yet again, to qualified teacher status. We or people who have come from industry to teach physics all saw what happened when he tried to introduce his or science, the head teacher is able to use the teaching new policy of a Hippocratic oath for teachers, which standards in assessing them. was condemned by the “Left Foot Forward” blog as 5 Oral Answers27 OCTOBER 2014 Oral Answers 6

“patronising”. I see that he had to turn to Twitter for Chris Skidmore: Since May 2010 a new 420-place inspiration for his questions today. He could have asked primary school has been approved in Kingswood, to questions about so many subjects. Instead, he talks open in September 2015, as well as another 420 primary about the 3% of teachers who are unqualified. Why school places in other schools. This week, a new £5.4 million does he not talk about the 97% of teachers in our primary school has been approved for Emersons Green schools who are qualified and who are doing a brilliant East. Can the Minister estimate the total amount of job? Why does he not talk about trusting heads and extra funding and investment that has gone into the teachers to have the best possible qualified staff in their Kingswood constituency for primary school places in schools? the past four years?

Tristram Hunt: What guff! Clearly the Secretary of Mr Laws: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I State does not value those teaching skills. They are the congratulate him on his work to help us ensure additional criteria of the 2011 teaching standards that are used to places in his constituency. I confirm that under the determine qualified teacher status, which her Government previous Labour Government, £17 million was made have abandoned. Warrington, Chester and Milton Keynes available in his local authority area for basic need, and have all seen rises in the number of unqualified teachers. that has risen to £23 million in this Parliament. We have Given that the quality of teaching is the most important allocated another £9 million over the next two years, determinant of success, will she confirm that the Tory meaning that £32 million extra has been made available party has gone soft on standards and is putting ideology by this coalition Government for school places in my above the interests of pupils? hon. Friend’s area. Nicky Morgan: Well, what wishful thinking and, indeed, guff from the hon. Gentleman. If he wants to talk Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): Lib Dem councillors about the quality of teachers, he needs to look at the in Cambridge are calling this a crisis, and Tories in outcomes. This country has more good and outstanding Surrey are saying there is a severe shortfall in places for schools than in 2010. He ought to listen to the families next September. Bradford council says that it has a who want their children to be taught well. If he is so primary school places problem, and in nearby Leeds a worried about unqualified teachers, what does he say to secondary free school has attracted only 11 additional the schools in Stoke that allow him in to teach? pupils this term. When will the Minister drop the ideological policy on primary school places that was adopted by his School Budgets (Pension Changes) Tory master, and put parents and pupils first?

4. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): What assessment she has made of the effect of pension changes on school Mr Laws: We are putting pupils and parents first, and we are reversing a decline in primary school places. budgets; and if she will make a statement. [905631] Under the last Labour Government, 200,000 primary The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws): The employer school places were taken out of circulation, precisely at contribution rates for the teachers’ pension scheme will a time when the birth rate was rising. We will not follow increase by 2.3 percentage points following the such an irresponsible policy. recommendation to reform public sector pensions by the former Labour Minister, Lord Hutton of Furness. Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): The That will ensure that high-quality teacher pensions coalition Government have rightly given their support remain sustainable and affordable. to the proposed new West Didsbury primary school, to provide much-needed additional places. As we conclude John Pugh: That is reassuring, but why are so many the final consultation phase, will my right hon. Friend secondary heads in my constituency alarmed by the assure me that the Government will maintain coalition prospect of increased national insurance contributions? support for those vital new places, despite ideological opposition from Manchester city council? Mr Laws: We have delayed the increase until September 2015 to give schools and head teachers time to plan; protected the schools budget in real terms in 2015-16; Mr Laws: I assure my hon. Friend that we will and—I know that my right hon. Friend will welcome continue the massive investment in school places right this—allocated an extra £390 million to raise school across the country, including in his area where there has funding in the most underfunded parts of the country. been huge investment under this coalition Government—far All those measures mean that the increase in pension greater than under the last Labour Government. costs is affordable. Primary School Places Technical Baccalaureate

5. Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con): What 6. Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab): What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the progress she has made on introducing the technical provision of primary school places in a) Kingswood baccalaureate. [905633] constituency and b) England. [905632]

The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws): Some The Minister for Skills and Equalities (Nick Boles): 260,000 additional school places were created between Schools and colleges started teaching the 230 new tech-level May 2010 and May 2013, and we are on track to meet qualifications that will count towards the “tech bac” the extra pressures for places across the country. from September this year. 7 Oral Answers27 OCTOBER 2014 Oral Answers 8

Steve Rotheram: On 21 July the Minister told the STEM Subjects (Female Pupils) House: “I am very hopeful that about 25% of young people will take 7. Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con): What up the opportunity of a “tech bac”.—[Official Report,21July steps the Government have taken to improve participation 2014; Vol. 584, c. 1141.] rates of female pupils taking STEM subjects. [905634] Will he update the House on enrolment figures so far, and say how far they go towards meeting the Government’s The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan): target of 320,000 young people? Both of my ministerial roles give me a personal passion about this issue. As a result of our reforms to GCSEs, Nick Boles: It is probably better to explain how the this year a record proportion of pupils entered the “tech bac” works. It is, like the EBacc, a group of science EBacc subjects—68.7%—and girls perform even qualifications, and we will know how many students better than boys thanks to excellent teaching, but we have achieved the “tech bac”, or are studying for it, only want to continue to make progress, which is why the when the 16-to-19 tables for 2016 are produced in early Government are supporting the “Your Life” campaign, 2017. There will not be any figures under any Government which will change young people’s perceptions of where for the number enrolled in “tech bac”—students do not maths and science can take them. enrol in it; they are measured after the event on whether they have achieved the qualifications that count towards Stephen McPartland: I am glad that the Women’s the “tech bac”. Engineering Society is based in Stevenage. The WES and I are concerned that, although young women enjoy science, technology, engineering and maths subjects, Steve Rotheram: What about the take-up?” they do not associate them with a career choice. Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming “Sparks”, the Nick Boles: The hon. Gentleman keeps asking questions new WES initiative designed to encourage young women from a sedentary position, but he has betrayed the fact to turn that interest in STEM subjects into a career that he completely misunderstands the policy. That is choice in engineering? curious since the Labour party has spent a long time claiming that it was its policy in the first place. “Tech Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. bac” is a group of qualifications. Students do not enrol We welcome all initiatives that aspire to get more girls in it; they discover whether they have achieved it at the into careers such as engineering. I entirely welcome the end of the period. “Sparks” initiative, which the WES, based in Stevenage, has launched. Working with more than 200 partners Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con): If the “tech from the UK’s best-known businesses and educators, bac” is to be a success, it will need the full support of and with the support of organisations such as WES, future employers. Will my right hon. Friend let the our “Your Life” campaign will promote STEM subjects House know what efforts he is making to ensure that leading to a wide range of career options. employers recognise the “tech bac”, support it, and are encouraging young people to get involved? Sir Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con): My right hon. Friend will be aware that, in the UK, we have the Nick Boles: My hon. Friend has, of course, thoroughly lowest participation rate of women in engineering of understood the policy, and it would make no sense if any country in the European Union. She welcomes there was not intense involvement by employers in the “Sparks” and “Your Life” but, in that context, will she design of those qualifications. That is what we are welcome tomorrow’s engineers week, which is next week? doing, and we want to hear from any employers about It aims to change perceptions of engineering, particularly what further improvements we can make to that among young ladies in the 11 to 14 age group? qualification design. Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am happy to add my support to the national engineers David Wright (Telford) (Lab): Is not careers advice week next week. As I said at a recent event, I understand therefore important in partnership with employers? The that we need 83,000 more engineers every year for the CBI has described the system of careers advice as being next 10 years, and they cannot all be men. on life support. What will the Minister do to improve careers advice and ensure that people moving out of the baccalaureate can go forward and get employment? School Buildings

Nick Boles: We have changed Ofsted guidance to 8. Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con): What steps her ensure it can check whether schools are adequately Department is taking to improve school buildings fulfilling their responsibility to provide independent where most needed. [905635] advice and guidance to young people. We have also changed the nature of the National Careers Service 10. Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con): What steps contracts to ensure that it spends 5% of its contract her Department is taking to improve school buildings value on providing career advice and guidance to young where most needed. [905638] people. We have therefore taken a great many steps, but we never think that the job is done—we are not remotely The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws): Investment complacent—and we are open to other suggestions, in the school estate is one of the Government’s highest including the hon. Gentleman’s, on how to improve the priorities. This Government will invest £5.6 billion on quality of advice and guidance provided to young people. maintenance and improving the condition of school 9 Oral Answers27 OCTOBER 2014 Oral Answers 10 buildings between 2011 and 2015. In addition, the Damian Green (Ashford) (Con): Will the Minister £2.4 billion priority school building programme is join me in congratulating the John Wallis Church of addressing 260 schools in the worst condition. England academy in south Ashford? Its results have been transformed since it became an academy, and this Andrew Stephenson: Parents in Pendle are delighted term it has been transformed physically, with new buildings with three brand new primary school buildings that giving top-class provision for both academic and vocational opened in September, but many more schools in Pendle subjects. Will he also welcome the fact that these new are in need of improvement. Will my right hon. Friend buildings were provided at considerably less expense the Minister and our Secretary of State be willing to than would have been incurred under the previous visit Pendle to see the progress we have made, but also Government’s Building Schools for the Future programme? some of the challenges our schools still face? Mr Laws: My right hon. Friend is right. I am delighted to hear about the new buildings in his constituency. We Mr Laws: I am delighted to hear about the new are not only allocating a massive amount of money for school buildings opening in my hon. Friend’s constituency. improving the school building stock and making sure The Secretary of State notes the kind invitation she has that there are extra places, but we are building new received and will try to find time to visit my hon. schools at a considerably reduced cost, compared with Friend’s constituency in the near future. the very expensive Building Schools for the Future programme. Graham Evans: What steps are being taken to support the installation of energy-efficient measures such as Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): Balaam solar panels, similar to the ones installed at the outstanding Wood academy in my constituency needs vital rebuilding Helsby high school in my constituency of Weaver Vale? work in order to secure its future serving one of the most deprived part of Birmingham. It was in line for Mr Laws: The Government are committed to helping Building Schools for the Future money, but, as we schools to become greener and more energy efficient. know, that was scrapped. It is still waiting to hear That is why we have invested £20 million so far in the whether it will get support under the Priority School Salix energy efficiency loan scheme, supporting a wide Building programme, but if schools like that in local range of energy-efficiency technologies with projected authorities try to use their own land and assets creatively energy savings in excess of £40 million. to finance such things, they face massive bureaucracy from the Department. Why do the Department and Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op): Ministers make it so easy for free schools to get capital Earlier this month, I was pleased to visit the outstanding and so difficult for local authority schools? St John Bosco college in Croxteth in my constituency to see its brand new buildings. Bosco is one of the schools Mr Laws: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about that lost out when the Government cancelled Building the school in his constituency, I would be happy to meet Schools for the Future in 2010. Will the Minister join him to discuss it. We would want to remove any bureaucracy me in congratulating the school and the Labour mayor where schools are sensibly trying to draw together capital of Liverpool, Joe Anderson, on ensuring that the rebuilding plans, but we also have the Priority School Building of Bosco went ahead? programme and the ongoing academies capital maintenance fund. They are satisfying the condition needs of many schools across the country. Mr Laws: I am always delighted to see new school estate being built and improved. I am delighted also to Apprenticeships say that in a few months the Government will be able to announce multi-year allocations of maintenance money 9. Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab): What plans she across England, as well as a Priority School Building has to increase the number of apprenticeships for 16 to programme 2 that will be targeted at schools in the 18-year-olds; and if she will make a statement. [905636] worst condition across the country. The Minister for Skills and Equalities (Nick Boles): Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab): St John’s We are providing an additional £170 million to fund Catholic academy in Kidsgrove is one of the schools over 100,000 incentive payments of £1,500 to employers that lost out back in 2010 when it should have had a who take on a young person aged 16 to 24. new school building on what are currently two separate sites. When the Minister comes to announce the successful Stephen Timms: The official statistics show a big fall bids for phase 2 of the Priority School Building programme, in the number of apprenticeship starts for under-19s, will he make sure that that Kidsgrove school is included, from over 130,000 in 2010-11 to 95,000 last year. Why and will he take account of the substantial subsidence has there been that fall? Why has it been allowed to on the older site and make sure that we have a school happen, and how optimistic is the Minister that the building fit for education? measures he has just announced will turn around that very disappointing state of affairs? Mr Laws: We have now received all the bids for the Priority School Building programme 2. We are assessing Nick Boles: I am always optimistic, but it is easier to those and hope to make decisions towards the end of be optimistic when the desired result has already happened. this year. As a consequence of the points that the hon. Provisional data for 2013-14 indicate a slight increase in Lady makes, I will take a particularly close look at the apprenticeships for under-19s and for 19 to 24-year-olds. school that she mentions. We are therefore hopeful that that improvement will 11 Oral Answers27 OCTOBER 2014 Oral Answers 12 continue. However, there is a serious point here, which they can be funded. That has meant that further education is what employers think about offering apprenticeships colleges are now directly incentivised to create those to people who may be as young as 16 and perhaps do work experience opportunities. not have all the emotional maturity and the employability skills that employers expect in an apprenticeship that Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab): Has the Minister had will last at least a year and be quite demanding. That is any specific discussions with schools about pupils with exactly why we have created traineeships as a stepping learning disabilities and how we can help them get into stone to apprenticeships. It may well be in the future work more quickly? that for many 16-year-olds the right answer is to do a traineeship first for six months and then to move on to Nick Boles: It is incredibly important that opportunities an apprenticeship, rather than to go straight into an to work are not preserved for one group in society. We apprenticeship. will be a fair and prosperous society only if we create opportunities involving all people, whether that is women Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): Unemployment is in engineering or people with learning disabilities and falling fast. In my constituency there is now significantly other special needs. I visited my local college in Grantham less than 1% unemployment. Employers will have to the other week; it is working closely with local employers recognise that it is in their own interest to take on to create opportunities for young people with learning apprentices, because if they do not embrace apprenticeships, disabilities and other special needs to gain experience of they will not be able to find people with the skills they employment. That is exactly what a great FE college need in a few years because such people simply will not will do in a community, and there are many such be there. around the country.

22. [905651]David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con): Nick Boles: That is a powerful message, and I am Our new studio school in Warrington is providing a grateful to my right hon. Friend for delivering it. It is a brilliant link between the school and the work force. It message that all of us in the House, whatever party we is supported by parents and all local employers. Will represent, should be taking to every business and employer the Minister confirm that he intends to accelerate the in our constituencies. If they are not offering apprenticeships roll-out of studio schools in Cheshire and more now, why not? What is holding them back? We want generally? them to come forward and offer apprenticeships and traineeships for our young people. Nick Boles: We are happy to take proposals for new studio schools from any area and any group of people Workplace Skills who want to set one up, as we are for free schools and new university technical colleges. We do not have a 11. David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con): What steps prescriptive, one-size-fits-all policy: we believe in letting she is taking to equip young people with the skills they a thousand flowers bloom, and studio schools are an need to succeed in the workplace. [905639] important part of that. Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con): Does The Minister for Skills and Equalities (Nick Boles): my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways in which We have reformed the way in which 16-to-19 education schools can prepare young people for the workplace is is funded and the qualifications that count in league by bringing businesses into their buildings? With that in tables. We have also raised the quality of apprenticeships mind, will he join me in congratulating Nigel Dawson and traineeships, and enabled more students to take and the Fearns community sports college in my part in work experience. Students who do not hold at constituency, which is hosting my jobs fair next week, least a grade C in maths and English GCSE at age 16 on Halloween, with 200 vacancies and 31 employers in are now also required to continue to study those subjects. the school grounds during the holiday?

David Rutley: It is good to see schools such as All Nick Boles: That is exactly the kind of enterprising Hallows Catholic college making enterprise a priority initiative that we want all schools to undertake. It did, in education. However, a recent study by the Chartered of course, take a particularly enterprising Member of Management Institute pointed that while 89% of businesses Parliament to persuade them to do so, and I know that rate business experience as part of education, only 22% other schools will want to follow his lead. are prepared to provide such opportunities for young people. What steps are the Government taking to encourage Careers Advice more businesses to step up to the plate and provide opportunities for young people across the country? 12. Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab): What plans she has to reform Nick Boles: The key change that we have made is to careers advice. [905640] make it easier for colleges and schools to go out and actively create those work experience opportunities. The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan): Previously, colleges and schools offering 16-to-19 education One of my priorities is to ensure that young people were funded on the basis of the qualifications that leave school prepared for the world of work and able to students were taking, and that meant that they were not take advantage of the opportunities available to them. being rewarded for their work in creating work experience. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Skills and Equalities Now they are funded per student, and work experience has just said, we want to see improvements to the is specifically allowed as one of the things for which quality of careers advice available to young people, with 13 Oral Answers27 OCTOBER 2014 Oral Answers 14 many more schools and employers working together to Many of them have already bid for skills projects as provide excellent support. We have already made a part of the city deals and regional growth funding number of changes in this area, including issuing revised granted by the Government. I shall certainly look at the statutory guidance to schools. funding, but I would never like to pre-empt any Treasury approvals. Mr Blunkett: But the Minister of State was reminded earlier this afternoon that the CBI had described careers Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con): Does the Secretary of advice and education as being on life support. That is State agree that evidence of effective careers advice can generous in that it presumes that any support at all is be seen in the increasing numbers of pupils taking being given to careers advice. Given that the National STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and Careers Council, the Gatsby Charitable Foundation maths—which is important in meeting the needs of and, most recently, the Social Mobility and Child Poverty industry? Will she join me in congratulating Rugby high Commission have expressed genuine concern about what school in my constituency where, in the past three years, is happening, will the Secretary of State put in place a the number of those taking maths at A-level has increased monitoring process and, at the very least, instruct Ofsted by 50%? to give no school a mark greater than “requires improvement” if its careers education and advice is not Nicky Morgan: I certainly congratulate all those involved up to scratch? at Rugby high school in encouraging our young people Nicky Morgan: As the right hon. Gentleman said at to take maths and to continue to study all maths and the end of his question, we already have a monitoring science subjects. As we have already heard, it is absolutely process, which is that Ofsted has a duty to look at the essential that our young people continue to study STEM independent careers advice available to schools. I would subjects, because there is a real need for them among not want to say that everything is all sorted out and that the businesses in our economy. there are not patches across the country, but I would just point out that a recent survey carried out by CASCAiD, Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op): We a careers advice company in my constituency, said that, are seeing the impact of the Government’s woeful record I think, about 86% school students said they had already on careers in their flagship early years apprenticeship had access to some form of careers advice. He is right, scheme. Figures I have uncovered show that, despite however, to say that there is more we can do. Ministers doubling the bursary, just 38 people applied in the first six months. The Government were aiming Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con): for 1,000. The scheme has now closed. The Government On Friday. alongside the right hon. Member for Kingston have dismantled careers services, leaving no pipeline to upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) and the get the best young people into this important scheme to hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) I helped to improve quality in the early years. What lessons does launch the Humber careers gold standard, a new the Secretary of State draw from this appalling experience? programme developed by the Humber local enterprise partnership to provide a rigorous but realistic framework Nicky Morgan: I do not think that 1.8 million to encourage the delivery of impartial, relevant and apprenticeships is anything to be sniffed at. In fact, the inspiring careers guidance for young people that will be Government have created more apprentices and we are rolled out across schools in the area. Will the Secretary committed to creating 3 million more in the next Parliament. of State encourage schools and colleges to participate As for what the hon. Lady says about careers advice, we in the Humber careers gold standard, and will she have already, as from 1 October, extended the National monitor its performance so that we can derive lessons Careers Service. Ofsted is expecting careers guidance, for the nation as a whole? but I have already said that there is more to do in terms of building partnerships between employers and schools. Nicky Morgan: I thank the Chairman of the Education Committee. I encourage schools and colleges to take Academies part in the Humber careers gold standard. I think my hon. Friend’s more general point is that there are already 14. John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab): If she will bring some exceptional schemes across the country and we forward legislative proposals to allow failed academies need to harness them. We need to work with businesses, to return to local authority control. [905642] employer organisations, schools and colleges to ensure that such opportunities are available to all students The Minister of State, Department for Education right across the country. (Mr Nick Gibb): We have no plans to legislate to allow Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): I was pleased to join failed academies to return to local authority control. the Chair of the Select Committee at the launch of the We take swift and decisive action to deal with any Humber careers gold standard. Does the Secretary of academies that are failing, which may include issuing a State agree that regional hubs may well be part of the warning notice, terminating their funding agreement or way forward for better quality careers information, securing a new high performing academy sponsor to advice and guidance, but that they need to be properly take the school forward. funded? Will she make a commitment to ensuring that they are properly funded? John Mann: So much for democracy! What if the parents want a return to local authority control for a Nicky Morgan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that failed academy? What if the teachers want a return to regional hubs offer an important opportunity for schools. local authority control? What if it is a village primary I hope that all hubs are working in particular with local academy and the whole village would like a return? enterprise partnerships, which offer great opportunities. What is wrong with that? Why can that not happen? 15 Oral Answers27 OCTOBER 2014 Oral Answers 16

Mr Speaker: That was five questions from a very that schools still get the pupil premium—another excellent experienced Member—and exceptionally cheeky chappie. policy—despite the fact that we are now giving free school meals? Mr Gibb: What parents want is every local school to be a good school, and that is what the academies Mr Laws: I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend programme is delivering. Sponsored schools that have has been enjoying the free school meals in his constituency been open for four years are showing a 5.7 percentage and sampling them in different establishments. He is point improvement in their GCSE results compared right that pupil premium registration is extremely important, with their predecessor schools, so it is a programme that which is why we have given guidance to all schools in is working. I am afraid that in the past too many the country. From the pilot areas, we know it is achievable schools were left languishing under local authority control. to ensure that pupil premium registration continues. In the medium term, we will explore data-sharing Academy Sponsorship arrangements so that schools no longer have to deal with this burden themselves.

15. Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab): What Mr Speaker: I am sure we are all glad that the health assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the and nutrition of the hon. Member for Cambridge system of academy sponsorship; and if she will make a (Dr Huppert) are assured beyond doubt. statement. [905643] Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con): Wylam first school The Minister of State, Department for Education is a big supporter of the free school meals programme. (Mr Nick Gibb): There are 642 approved academy sponsors, It has purchased the specific equipment needed, but has and 349 of them are good or outstanding converter still not received the funding it is entitled to, given the academies. Results over a number of years show that guidance from the Department for Education. I have a established sponsors are delivering sustained improvements, meeting on this matter fairly soon with the Minister, but helping to transform the life chances of thousands of will he expedite it with his civil servants to ensure a pupils. There is a rigorous and thorough process for resolution in weeks, not months? approving sponsors and reviewing their growth and performance, and regional schools commissioners now Mr Laws: I shall certainly follow up that issue on lead in identifying new sponsors, challenging existing behalf of my hon. Friend. I am pleased to tell him that sponsors and advising on appropriate sponsor matches earlier this month the Department announced it was for new academies. making available almost £25 million in additional capital to schools to support this policy. This money has come Mr Campbell: The Secretary of State indicated some from an underspend in the existing free school meals time ago that she was in favour of allowing Ofsted to budget. check on academy schools. Why has she changed her mind? Or is the Chief Whip still in charge of her Free Schools Department? 17. Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab): Mr Gibb: Of course, Ofsted does inspect academies How many free schools for 16 to 18-year-olds have and does have the power to inspect chains of academies, opened in the last four years. [905646] as we have seen recently with its inspections of a series of academies in the E-ACT and Academies Enterprise The Minister of State, Department for Education Trust chains. The truth is that Ofsted has the power to (Mr Nick Gibb): A total of 14 16-to-18 free schools have inspect chains of academy schools. opened in the last four years, including the highly innovative King’s college London mathematics school Free School Meals (Infants) and Exeter maths school, which aim to increase the levels of mathematical attainment by the most able students to enable them to study at top-rated universities, 16. Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): What steps and Chapeltown academy, a new 16-to-18 sixth form she is taking to help schools deliver free school meals to committed to high-quality academic A-levels. all infant pupils. [905644] Angela Smith: The academy in Chapeltown that the The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws): Thanks to Minister has just referred to opened in September and the hard work of schools, caterers and local authorities, has been funded for 90 places, but the numbers recruited free meals are now being offered to infants in schools fall significantly short of that—I understand that the across England. Some 98.5% of schools served hot figure is something like 55. Why are the Government meals from the beginning of September, which is a funding institutions that are not recruiting to full capacity fantastic success, and by January 2015 we expect almost while cutting the funding available to 16 to 18-year-olds 100% of eligible schools to be delivering hot meals. already in education or training in existing institutions?

Dr Huppert: I thank my right hon. Friend for his Mr Gibb: The hon. Lady raised her opposition to the answer and the policy. Having seen and tasted these establishment of the Chapeltown academy in an meals in action in Cambridge, I can assure him that this Adjournment debate in April, when she said that policy is welcomed by pupils, staff and parents alike. “there is no evidence whatsoever that there is demand for these However, an issue has been raised to do with the additional sixth-form places.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2014; consequences for the pupil premium. How will he ensure Vol. 579, c. 964.] 17 Oral Answers27 OCTOBER 2014 Oral Answers 18

In fact, 58 places have been taken up. Free schools often Mr Speaker: There is probably a picture of the right have smaller numbers in the first year than their maximum, hon. Gentleman on the wall of the school—as there is, but numbers tend to increase in the years ahead. To in my experience, in most restaurants around the United quote its website, the school wants to Kingdom. “Increase aspirations to attend the world’s best universities, and boost attainment at A-Level”. Topical Questions Why can the hon. Lady not support such a school, with such great ambitions for young people? T1. [905653] Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/ Co-op): If she will make a statement on her Faith Schools departmental responsibilities.

18. Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): What steps The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan): she is taking to ensure that parents wishing to send As this is the first topical questions session since the their children to faith schools can do so. [905647] summer results, let me congratulate all students who achieved GCSE and A-level results this summer, as well The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan): as their hard-working teachers and their families who Faith schools play an important role in our education supported them. I would particularly like to pay tribute system and I firmly support them. All parents can to those achieving phonics results—we saw 102,000 more express a preference for a place at any state-funded six-year-olds achieving the reading standards this year—and school, including faith schools, with a minimum of also to congratulate the winners and the nominees at three preferences in rank order. Where a school receives the excellent national teaching awards, which I attended more applications than it has places available, those last night. places must be allocated in accordance with its published admission arrangements. In 2014, 86.5% of parents Mr Sheerman: Sixth-form colleges in our country secured a place at their first-preference school. used to be the jewels in the crown of our educational system. Seventy-eight per cent. of them are now cutting Mr Evans: I welcome that response, but parents with back in special subjects in the broader curriculum, and youngsters who happen to live in Clitheroe and want to in many of the tutorials and special things they could send them to a Catholic school have to pass a non-faith- do for their students. Sixth-form colleges have had three based comprehensive on the way. Therefore, the local major cuts in funding; they are anticipating a fourth. authority will not give them any assistance whatever Why is the Secretary of State punishing our sixth-form with school transport. This is a hideous form of colleges in this way? discrimination that ends up giving parents a huge bill at the end of the year, particularly those with two or three Nicky Morgan: We certainly are not punishing sixth-form youngsters. What can be done to make the choice more colleges, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the effective without clobbering parents? economic situation this Government inherited has led to some very difficult decisions. We have no plans to Nicky Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for his question reduce the 16-to-19 funding rate in the academic year and I understand the points he has made. Although 2015-16, but we cannot confirm the base rate of funding local authorities must have regard to parents’ wishes to until we know how many places we are going to have to have their children educated in a school based on religion fund. We will not have confirmation of student numbers or belief, there is no statutory duty to require them to until the end of January, which is why we have not yet provide free transport to that school; rather, they must confirmed the national funding rate for 16 to 19-year-olds. provide free transport for pupils to attend the nearest suitable school beyond the statutory walking distance. T3. [905655] Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): “Suitable” in this context means providing education School sixth forms have a different funding formula, appropriate to age and, where relevant, any special but they are under a lot of financial pressure. As the educational needs a child may have. I understand the participation age is raised, they find themselves having frustrations of many parents and will perhaps look at to do a lot more with less. When will the Government this again. be able to extend the protection of schools funding, which currently goes only up to age 16, to include sixth Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): I was late for the forms as well? start of questions because I was attending the opening day of the Sikh faith school in Leicester. May I thank The Minister for Skills and Equalities (Nick Boles): It the Minister for all the support that she and Lord Nash, is right—I think my hon. Friend would agree—to focus the Minister in the other place have given to the school, funding on school-aged children below 16, because that and may I ask her to come and visit it as soon as is the stage in life at which education has the most possible? dramatic impact on the young person’s chances. That is why he is a supporter of and part of a Government who Nicky Morgan: I thank the right hon. Gentleman protected school funding up to the age of 16, but was very much indeed. In fact, news of his tour to the school unable to extend that protection to sixth forms— had already reached me, and I am delighted to see him in his place. I look forward to visiting the school very Mr Speaker: Mr Steve McCabe. much and I am absolutely delighted to wish it all the very best for its successful opening and its continued Nick Boles: Thank you, Mr Speaker. You cut me off success in the terms ahead. in my prime! 19 Oral Answers27 OCTOBER 2014 Oral Answers 20

Mr Speaker: I am always disappointed when I do so. T2. [905654] Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab): What I think that the “War and Peace” version should be have the Government done to make schools more lodged in the Library of the House for the delectation energy-efficient and to make pupils more aware of the of hon. and right hon. Members in the long winter need to cut carbon emissions? Will the Secretary of evenings that lie ahead. State voice her support today for the run on sun campaign of Friends of the Earth to install solar Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): The panels in schools? Minister has decided to establish a second independent trust to provide children’s services in Slough, following Mr Laws: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman the experiment in Doncaster, but what evidence is there was in his place earlier, but one hon. Member has of the success of that approach? Will he place such already asked about this and I mentioned the £20 million evidence in the Library and will he, like me, call for a Salix scheme, which has led to considerable savings in rigorous independent evaluation of the experiment? energy in English schools. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con): There has been a (Mr Edward Timpson): The hon. Gentleman will know 15% increase in the number of students enrolling at that the formation of the Doncaster trust was carried sixth-form colleges without a GCSE in maths, yet these out over a long period with much reflection on what post-16 education providers are excluded from the was the best solution for Doncaster, bearing in mind the £20 million golden hellos available to attract maths specific issues it faced. Part of that has been making teachers to further education. Given that maths skills sure that the lessons we learn from Birmingham, and are so crucial to young people’s futures, what is the from Slough and other local authorities where there has Department doing about that? been too much failure in children’s services over too many years, will form the picture of understanding of The Minister of State, Department for Education what works best. There is no “one size fits all” solution. (Mr Nick Gibb): We introduced the golden hello scheme The Hackney education trust was an extremely effective to support the recruitment and retention of well-qualified example of how standards can be raised over a 10-year maths teachers in the publicly funded further education period of stability. Our thinking reflects much of the sector who can teach at GCSE level and above. Sixth-form result that came out of Hackney, but we have worked colleges are not included in the scheme, because, along closely with the relevant local authorities and found the with school sixth forms, they are eligible for the recruitment best solution for each individual local authority. support and incentives offered by the National College for Teaching and Leadership, which are not available to Mr Speaker: Mr McCabe. FE colleges. Steve McCabe: I will just come back on that— T4. [905656] Mr Nicholas Brown Newcastle upon Tyne [Laughter.] East) (Lab): Some 34% of the newly qualified teachers who entered the state-funded teaching profession in Mr Speaker: I am not forcing the hon. Gentleman! 2000 had left the profession 10 years later. What does the Minister think accounts for that poor retention Steve McCabe: That is perfectly all right, Mr Speaker. rate? Does the Minister want an independent evaluation of the experiment? Nicky Morgan: I am always very unhappy to hear about good, highly qualified teachers who decide that Mr Timpson: First, it is not an experiment; it is a teaching is no longer the profession for them. There are, carefully thought out approach to improving children’s of course, myriad reasons why people decide to leave services in Doncaster and Slough. A whole system of any particular profession, but over the last four months checks and balances is of course in place to ensure that I have been going around the country meeting teachers, those standards are rising—both through Ofsted and and it is clear to me that the issues of work load and the evaluation of the close monitoring by the Department inspections, and some of the expectations of the Ofsted in the early stages. Evaluation is in place, but our regime, are affecting teachers. That is why, last week, the principal aim is to ensure that we raise standards for Government launched the work load challenge for teachers children in those local authorities so that they get the and published the “mythbuster” with Ofsted. care and protection they need. Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con): During the current T7. [905659] Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): Parliament, Hampshire county council has invested just Given the low proportion of men working in primary over £10 million in new primary school places in my schools and given the Secretary of State’s joint role as constituency. They include places at The Westgate school, Minister for Women and Equalities, what steps will my which is Hampshire’s first all-through school, and at the right hon. Friend take to encourage the recruitment of Winchester primary academy which is to be established more male primary school teachers? by the University of Winchester Academy Trust on the new Barton Farm development. Will the Secretary of The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws): My hon. State hop on the train to Winchester with me and see Friend is quite right to say that we need to do more for herself what a positive campaign for new primary to attract male teachers into primary schools. A low places can do? I may even make her a cup of coffee in percentage—15%—of current primary school teachers the office, which is just around the corner. are male. We are trying to improve our communications to attract more men to teach in primary schools. We are Nicky Morgan: How could I refuse an invitation like improving the level of bursaries and since 2010 there that—a cup of coffee made by my hon. Friend’s own has, in fact, been a 10% increase in the number of male fair hands? I should of course be delighted to visit teachers in primary schools, but we need to do more. Winchester as soon as my diary allows it. 21 Oral Answers27 OCTOBER 2014 Oral Answers 22

T5. [905657] Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): Why, places, and in some schools the admission arrangements although School Direct has under-recruited, giving numbers are unclear. We are looking into the matter, and I am back yet again this year, has the Secretary of State also aware of the adjudicator’s investigation. increased its allocation for 2015-16, putting secure teacher supply in jeopardy, as yet another university pulls out Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab): after losing numbers as a result of the programme? May I add my voice to the call for all young carers to be included in the pupil premium? We have an excellent Mr Laws: The hon. Gentleman should know that we young carers’ group in Salford, but that cannot make up have massively over-allocated places this year both in for the fact that the support is not there. Young carers the higher education sector and through School Direct. are more vulnerable, and they do 40% less well academically The challenges that we face in some of the shortage than other pupils. Will the Minister commit himself to subjects are not as a consequence of School Direct; they including all young carers? are reflected in higher education institutions as well. Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD): The pupil premium Mr Timpson: I hear the hon. Lady’s call—a call I have is making a massive difference to many young people now heard from both sides of the House. She may like who risk falling behind. Youngcarers’ GCSE performance to take into account the fact that about 60% of young is, on average, the equivalent of nine grades lower than carers will already benefit from the pupil premium that of their peers, but many do not receive the pupil through their free school meal allocation, but of course premium. Will the Minister consider the case put by the we need to make sure that all young carers get the Carers Trust and Norfolk Carers Support for extending support they need. As I have already indicated, a meeting the premium to all young carers? is taking place with the relevant Minister to discuss this matter further. Mr Timpson: We do need to do more to support young carers. We changed the law recently to enable all Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD): Will the Minister of them to benefit from a proper assessment of their meet me to hear about the fantastic work and the effort needs, so that they can be given the support that they being made in our Bradford schools to deal with the require. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we also very large numbers of children of new-arrival EU migrant extended the pupil premium recently to cover children families, and also to hear about the incredible strain in care, children who are adopted, and, more recently, that that is putting on the provision of places and children receiving early-years education. However, I raising of attainment in our schools? shall be happy to look at the hon. Gentleman’s proposal. I know that he works closely with the Norfolk young Nicky Morgan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his carers forum, and I also know that my hon. Friend the question. I am always happy to meet hon. Members Minister for Schools will be meeting representatives of about their schools. If I cannot do it, one of the the Carers Trust in November to discuss precisely this Ministers certainly will meet him to hear about those issue. issues.

T6. [905658] Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab): About Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab): Hon. 150,000 people die each year who might have been Members and local authorities across the country have saved had someone only known what to do. Will the expressed concern about the shortage of school places. Secretary of State agree to make the teaching of Why, then, does the Minister think that Westminster emergency life support skills compulsory, so that every city council had 235 empty primary school places this school leaver is a life-saver? summer and has suffered a 16% drop in applications for Nicky Morgan: Like the hon. Lady, I appreciate the primary schools since 2011? importance of teaching life-saving skills. There have Mr Laws: As the hon. Lady will have heard, we have been calls for it to be part of the personal, social, health allocated £5 billion in basic needs funding across this and economic education curriculum, and we are considering Parliament and we have fully reversed the massive decline that. The difficulty is that the more I mandate, the less in primary school places that took place under the last time is available for teaching, and the more burdened Labour Administration. teachers become. However, I agree that this is a very important issue. Mr Speaker: Last but not least, Mr David Burrowes. Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): As the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for state boarding schools, Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): There I know that the Secretary of State is very supportive of are reports that Ofsted is demanding that a Christian such schools. Will she meet me, and my hon. Friend the school invites an imam to take collective worship and Member for Stourbridge (Margot James)—who has that Jewish schoolchildren have been asked intrusive been doing a great deal of work in this regard—as a questions about their views on sexuality. Does that matter of urgency, so that we can discuss the ridiculous really promote British values? interpretation of the regulations by the Office of the Schools Adjudicator in relation to out-boarding? Nicky Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend. That is clearly a matter for Ofsted and it is investigating exactly Nicky Morgan: I would be delighted to meet my hon. what was said to the school. I think we would all agree Friend and the hon. Member for Stourbridge. We are that the fundamental British values of respect, democracy aware that a small number of state-funded boarding and tolerance are shared by all schools and all people of schools and academies are making charges for day all faiths. 23 27 OCTOBER 2014 European Council 24

European Council while at the same time protecting our national interest by keeping energy bills down for businesses and Britain’s hard-working families. 3.31 pm The Council also discussed the situation in Ukraine The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron): Yesterday and relations with Russia. We welcomed the Minsk British forces concluded their combat mission in agreement between Kiev, Moscow and the separatists, Afghanistan. I know the thoughts of the whole House but the Council was also clear that much more must be will be with the friends and families of every one of the done to implement that agreement before the EU should 453 British soldiers who lost their lives in this long consider lifting any of the sanctions put in place in campaign. We will never forget their sacrifice for us. response to the conflict and in response to Russia’s actions. The Council welcomed the parliamentary elections When al-Qaeda attacked the twin towers in 2001, it that took place in Ukraine yesterday, and it made it planned that attack from Afghanistan, operating freely clear it would not recognise the outcome of any elections under the Taliban regime. Our incredible servicemen organised by the separatists outside the framework of and women have driven al-Qaeda out, and they have Ukrainian law. built up and trained the Afghan forces—none of which even existed in 2001—so that the Afghans can take Let me turn to the issue over the UK’s contributions control of their own security. I said when I became to the EU. I want to be clear with the House how the Prime Minister that I would bring our combat troops demand for the UK to repay money has come about, home. Today they are coming home, and we should be and why the scale and timing of this demand is incredibly proud of all that they have done to keep our unacceptable. Mr Speaker, in an organisation like the country safe. EU, if your economy grows a little faster or a little With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a slower, then there can be adjustments every year to the statement on last week’s European Council. Before amount that you pay. In some years, the UK adjustment turning to the issue of our contributions to the EU, let has been negative—as it was in 2008, 2009, 2011 and me first update the House on three significant agreements 2012—and in some years we contribute a little bit more. where the UK played an important role: on Ebola, on This happens every year. And when the UK is growing climate change and on the situation in Ukraine. at 3% a year and many European economies are growing much more slowly, it would not be surprising to find First, on Ebola, the world is facing one of the worst Britain being asked to pay a little bit more this year. But public health emergencies in a generation. Playing our what has never happened is for ¤2 billion to be demanded. part in halting the rise of this terrible disease is not just This represents around 20% of our net contribution to meeting our moral obligations, but the single most the EU last year. effective way of preventing Ebola from infecting people in the United Kingdom. Britain has been making a Member states collectively are being asked to pay major contribution to the international response, pledging almost four times the highest gross figure requested in more than £205 million and sending troops and health recent years. It is simply not acceptable for the EU to workers to west Africa, but Britain must also use its make these kinds of demands, and to do so through a influence to get other countries to step up their fast-tracked process lasting barely a month. ¤2 billion is contributions. Before the Council, I wrote to all my bigger than many countries’ entire gross contributions; fellow leaders, urging that we significantly step up our it cannot just be nodded through by the EU bureaucracy collective response. At the meeting member states agreed as some kind of technical adjustment. It is British to my proposal to more than double the EU effort by taxpayers’ money, and it is not small change, but it is a pledging over ¤1 billion in assistance. The Council also vast sum. So this has to be examined in detail and agreed to increase the deployment of medical and support discussed properly. That is why I interrupted the Council staff in the region, and for member states to guarantee meeting on Friday to seek an urgent resolution to this proper care for our courageous health workers. issue. I was supported by the Prime Ministers of Italy, Secondly, it is vital that Europe plays its part if we are Holland, Malta, Greece and others, and the Council to secure a global deal on climate change in Paris next agreed that there would be an urgent discussion with year. One problem we have faced in the past is that Finance Ministers to resolve the issue going forwards. instead of just setting a binding target on carbon emissions, The issue is not just the scale of the money being the EU has set binding national targets on things like demanded, but the timetable. The Commission admits renewables and energy efficiency. These diktats on how that it does not actually need this—indeed, the President each country should reach its commitments can pile up of the Commission was not even aware of it on Thursday costs on our industries, consumers and families who do evening—so there is no pressing need for the money to not want to pay more on their energy bills than they be paid. There are fundamental questions over the have to, and they create an unnecessary trade-off between fairness of these payments. For example, the proposal is cutting carbon emissions and promoting economic growth. for funds to be taken from the UK to correct historic At this Council, we have chosen a different path. We contributions to the EU budget dating back to 2002, have reached a landmark commitment to deliver at least and to be redistributed based on the current share of 40% reductions in greenhouse gases by 2030, but we gross national income to countries which only joined have rejected any new binding national targets for renewables the EU in 2004 and 2007. But it is not just that Britain or energy efficiency, giving us full flexibility over how would lose out. It is also perverse that a country like we reduce our carbon, allowing us to do so at the lowest Greece—at the heart of the crisis in the eurozone—is possible cost for businesses and consumers. This is being asked to find money to pay back to countries like another example of where British leadership has helped Germany. The revised gross national income statistics the EU to step up and meet its international obligations, on which these adjustments are based are also not yet 25 European Council27 OCTOBER 2014 European Council 26 finalised. The numbers are a “provisional estimate” and efforts to help affected countries. We are proud of the the EU-wide process to quality-assure the figures will work of our armed forces, our health professionals and not conclude until well into 2015. our aid community. What effort was made at the summit Britain will not be paying ¤2 billion to anyone on 1 to encourage other countries to do what Britain has December, and we reject this scale of payment. We will done by sending health workers and personnel to the be challenging this in every way possible. We want to affected region? check how the statistics were arrived at and the methodology Let me turn to the EU budget change. The Commission’s that was used; we will crawl through this in exhaustive handling of the matter has been cack-handed and detail. unacceptable, and it has caused consternation in several The events at last week’s Council will not—to use other states. The urgent priority now is for the Government some British understatement—have enhanced the reputation to pursue all diplomatic means to get the best deal for of the European Union in the United Kingdom. As the Britain, but the Prime Minister must also explain whether Italian Prime Minister put it, even the EU’s founding the Government carried out due diligence in their handling fathers would turn to Euroscepticism when faced with of the matter. He says that he was made aware of the some of the things that you have seen here. The European matter only on 23 October, while the Chancellor said Union has to change. It has to regain trust, and that that he had “no warning”, but that is simply not the starts by understanding and respecting the fact that case. The budget changes arise due to changed estimates these payments and adjustments are about the hard-earned of gross national income—GNI. The scale of the changes taxes of its citizens. This is just one of the many should not have taken anyone in government by surprise challenges in our long campaign to reform the European because extensive coverage was given to significant changes Union, but it is vital we stick to the task. We have to our national income arising from the inclusion of the already cut the EU budget, got Britain out of the shadow economy, which is worth more than £50 billion. bail-out schemes, vetoed a treaty that was not in our Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Office for national interest, made vital progress on cutting red National Statistics agreed to, and has been part of, tape and completing the single market, and we are these substantial and planned changes throughout Europe leading the push for what will be the biggest bilateral for at least two years—since 2012? Will he further trade deal in history, between the EU and the US. confirm that the ONS stated publicly in May 2014 that None of this is easy. Progress is hard-won. It requires the changes would impact our budget contribution? It perseverance and hard work. We will carry on defending said in a press release that GNI our national interest and fighting with all we have to “is used in the calculation of a Member State’s contribution to the reform the EU over the coming years. At the end of EU budget.” 2017, it will not be the Brussels bureaucracy or the The Treasury was clearly aware of the situation, politicians of any party who will decide whether we because I have here a letter that the then Economic remain in the EU. If I am Prime Minister, it will be the Secretary, the right hon. Member for Loughborough British people who make that decision through an in/out (Nicky Morgan), wrote to a parliamentary Committee referendum. Others who aspire to this office and who on Europe not seven days ago, but seven months ago—on refuse to give the British people their say, should explain 11 March 2014. She said in that very interesting letter themselves to the House and the country, and I commend that changes to GNI would take place in time for 2014 this statement to the House. and wrote about the “high priority” that the Government were giving to addressing them. The changes had been 3.40 pm planned for a number of years, the ONS publicly declared that they would have an impact on our budget contribution, Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab): I thank and Ministers knew about them and claimed that they the Prime Minister for his statement. Let me start by were a “high priority”, so when the Prime Minister echoing his words about the contribution of our armed replies, will he really maintain that there was “no warning” forces in Afghanistan. All our thanks are with those and that Treasury Ministers knew nothing about the who have served our country, and all our thoughts are changes? Surely the Treasury must have made its own with the families of those who lost their lives. We will assessment of the impact on the EU budget that would continue to support the Afghan Government through follow. As a matter of basic competence, if it did not do political and humanitarian aid, as well as our training that, why not? This matters because the Prime Minister mission. Every one of our troops who served in Afghanistan could have done much earlier what he did at the last can take pride in their mission and what they achieved, minute on Friday: called for a meeting of Finance and the House and the whole country are proud of Ministers and entered negotiations about the demand. them. Is not the truth that this is a familiar pattern with this I also echo the Prime Minister’s words about Ukraine Prime Minister: months and months when he does not and support for its Government. On climate change, I do the work, followed by last-minute pyrotechnics when welcome the climate and energy package, paving the it goes wrong? No one will be fooled by it. He spends all way for the global UN summit in Paris next year. What his time negotiating with his party about Europe, when action will he be taking in the coming months to what he should be doing is the basic work of getting a encourage other countries, especially China and the better deal for Britain. Once again he shows that, for all United States, to bring forward ambitious targets and his bluster, he has been asleep at the wheel and the policies in advance of that conference? British people are paying the price. Turning to the Ebola crisis in west Africa, the whole world has been horrified by the devastating scenes. Our The Prime Minister: Throughout all that, the right hearts go out to the communities that confront the hon. Gentleman would not answer one simple question: threat on a daily basis. I welcome the Government’s would Labour pay the bill? That is the problem: there is 27 European Council27 OCTOBER 2014 European Council 28

[The Prime Minister] not help, especially when the calculations include earnings from prostitution and drugs, none of which ends up in absolutely no leadership available on the Opposition the Treasury. Is it any wonder that voters have their Front Bench. [Interruption.] Let me answer all his doubts about the merits of membership of the European questions—[Interruption.] Union?

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Gwynne¸ I recognise your The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend makes an voice very distinctly, and simply erecting a piece of important point. For those of us who want to argue paper in front of your mouth does not hide the fact that that the European Union is capable of reform, this was it is you. Calm yourself, man. Let us hear from the not a good development. It is important to understand Prime Minister. that these are provisional estimates and that EUROSTAT is still travelling to every country to work out what the The Prime Minister: It is very noisy today, Mr Speaker—a numbers actually are. There are important challenges to bit like a meeting of the Scottish Labour party. be made. But clearly the idea of a bill being presented in Let me answer all the right hon. Gentleman’s questions. that way, with so little time to pay, is not acceptable. On climate change, he asked specifically what we would now do to push China and America to make bigger Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab): On migration concessions. I think that the European Union now has from the European Union, may I ask the Prime Minister the opportunity to give a real lead, because we have set to name five towns which, in his view, have been swamped out the major steps that we are prepared to take, with a by it? reduction of at least 40% in carbon emissions. On Ebola, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely The Prime Minister: I would say to the right hon. right that we need not only money from other European Gentleman, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, countries—we got that at the weekend—but the that, to be fair to the Secretary of State for Defence, he commitment that they will help their health staff to corrected himself this morning, and I think he was travel to west Africa. There is now a clearing house for absolutely right. It is right for politicians to raise concerns medevac arrangements, negotiated by my right hon. about immigration, but we should always choose our Friend the Foreign Secretary, which I think will make a language carefully. He said this morning that he wished real difference. he had chosen his language in a different way, and I On Afghanistan, I welcome the support that the right agree with that. hon. Gentleman has given. I think that it is good that there is cross-party support for the backing that the Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con): May I sympathise Afghan Government should know they will get from with the Prime Minister on being taken by surprise on a Britain in terms of aid and paying for the Afghan subject that everybody in the Foreign Office and the national security forces. Treasury must have known was coming along for the On the budget, let me say this to the right hon. past five months, because British officials carried out Gentleman: the point is that we cannot know how much the huge revision of the British GNP? I congratulate we are liable to pay until the European Commission him on now choosing the sensible points, which are how produces the figures for every country in Europe. That to challenge the methodology and get the size of this information was not available weeks ago or months reviewed, and how to get rid of the nonsense that it is all ago; it was discussed at a meeting in Brussels only on to be paid in a lump sum in a fortnight. Many other Friday. That is why Labour left the country in such a countries will join him in trying to sort that out. mess: they do not know the difference between gross Did the Prime Minister raise the European arrest contributions and net contributions. That is the problem. warrant and the 34 other desirable directives which, I Basically, the right hon. Gentleman’s case comes trust, we are going to opt into? Does he agree with my down to two complaints. The first is that somehow we right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that these opt-ins are giving too much money to Brussels. That is from a are absolutely essential for the sake of our policing and party that gave away the British rebate and paid an criminal justice system if we are to make sure that it is extra £2 billion a year as a matter of official Government up to dealing with international crime? policy. The second complaint—we heard it from the shadow Chancellor—is that somehow under this The Prime Minister: Let me say to my right hon. and Government the Chancellor and the Prime Minister do learned Friend that of course these changes happen not properly communicate with each other. I have to say every year—they are expected every year and discussed that we see in front of us the authors of the most every year—but what has never happened before is a dysfunctional Government in British history. The Prime change on this scale, and no one was expecting that. As Minister in that Government did not even know what for the opt-out or opt-in on justice and human rights, it was in the Budget the day before it was brought to the is very important to recognise that we have already House of Commons. The idea that they should lecture achieved the biggest transfer of power from Brussels us on how a Government communicate must be one of back to Britain by opting out of 100 different pieces of the most ridiculous ever brought before the House. legislation. We now need to make sure that we keep our With the shambles in the Scottish Labour party, we country safe. learnt one thing this weekend: even his own party does not see him as a leader. Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): A binding energy savings goal would have guaranteed ¤2.5 trillion Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con): People in savings to consumers in the UK and across the EU, need a reason to believe that the EU is good for them, yet the UK opposed it. How can the Prime Minister and late demands for ¤2 billion with six weeks to pay do pretend that this has anything to do with leadership 29 European Council27 OCTOBER 2014 European Council 30 when experts are claiming that it is a go-slow on efficiency? however, could we spare a thought for those who have Far from being good for industry, it sends a strong survived, but who none the less have been subject to signal to energy efficiency businesses to start to divest grievous injury? from the UK and from other European countries? Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the most recent Ipsos MORI poll shows that support for the The Prime Minister: Respectfully, I disagree with the United Kingdom staying in Europe has risen to a hon. Lady. We all want improvements in energy efficiency, 23-year high—56% for and 36% against? Does he believe and we are seeing them here in the United Kingdom. that that will be of some comfort to him not only in Having a proper market for carbon and a proper price forging alliances in Europe in order to bring about the for carbon helps that to happen. But it is not necessary reform we all think is appropriate, but in helping him to have additional binding targets for nation states as combat UKIP and anyone else who wants to bring well as the target for reducing carbon emissions, because Britain out unilaterally? that skews the market and we end up spending more money than is otherwise necessary to get the outcome The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend that both she and I want, which is to tackle climate is absolutely right in what he says about the injured who change. have returned from Afghanistan. Members on both sides of the House now need to make a commitment Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con): We continue to that Governments for many years to come will look applaud the Prime Minister for his statement at Bloomberg after these people and make sure that we continue to that our national Parliament is the root of our democracy funnel the LIBOR fines into defence and veterans’ and for his demand for radical change in the European charities, as we have been doing. Union. As regards the outrageous behaviour over the On the issue of European reform, the most popular £1.7 billion, but also the question of immigration, given and the right approach is not to accept the question of its connection with the charter of rights and the need in/out today on the current terms, but to negotiate for treaty change, will he now agree that we should pass better terms and then give the British people the choice. legislation in this House, as he himself supported on the That is the right approach. Deregulation Bill when he was Leader of the Opposition, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab): Following on from so that we will then regain power over legislation in this the Prime Minister’s answer to the right hon. and learned House and over the EU? Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), will he confirm that he will give his own Home Secretary, the police and The Prime Minister: I have followed my hon. Friend’s the security services the tools they need to fight international arguments about the “notwithstanding” clause very crime and terrorism by making sure we have a vote in closely over many years. I believe that the right approach this place on the European arrest warrant before the is to have a renegotiation in order to deliver the things end of November? where we want to see change. We want change in terms of getting out of ever closer union, safeguards for the The Prime Minister: We have not changed our plans single market, and action on immigration, so the right on this in any regard at all: the plans we have set out are approach is to conduct that renegotiation. still the plans to have that vote. What matters most of all is that we give the police and the security services the Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): May I welcome powers they need to keep our country safe. what the Prime Minister has said about the Defence Secretary’s statement, because it did cause a great deal Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire) (Con): of offence? At the summit, did the Prime Minister have Does my right hon. Friend believe that the provisions a chance to discuss with President Hollande the President’s for the UK rebate on the EU budget contribution apply suggestion of a reception centre in Calais, which is to any additional demand made by the Commission? I opposed by the mayor of Calais, who will be giving think that they should and, therefore, that whatever the evidence to the Home Affairs Committee tomorrow? final calculation of any demand may be, up to two Does he agree that the issue is also illegal migration, thirds of it should be rebated back to the United and that countries such as Greece and Italy must do Kingdom. their bit to stop people entering illegally in that area? The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the important questions that needs to be The Prime Minister: I look forward to the mayor of asked and properly answered about this proposed sum Calais appearing in front of the right hon. Gentleman’s of money, which, as I have said, is still an estimate, is Select Committee. It is very important that they are how much of it is applicable for the rebate. Obviously, having those discussions. We are working with the French that would make a potentially significant difference to at every level to make sure we do not go back to the bad the amount. old days of Sangatte, but instead improve security around Calais. That is why the NATO fence is being erected Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab): The public do not really even as we speak and why those conversations continue. care about who knew what when; what they really care I look forward to seeing how the Committee gets on about is the bottom line of £1.7 billion being paid back tomorrow. from our taxes. Will the Prime Minister do what any Government should do: say what they mean, mean Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD): May I what they say and then do it? In other words, do not endorse my right hon. Friend’s remarks about Afghanistan pay, because that is exactly what this country would like and those who gave their lives there? On this occasion, to see happen. 31 European Council27 OCTOBER 2014 European Council 32

The Prime Minister: As ever, the hon. Lady has hit dedication and public service. What we must do is make the nail on the head: it is not the who knew what when, sure that they have the logistical support, which is why but the bottom line that matters. I have been very clear: we are sending over 750 troops and a warship equipped we are not paying ¤2 billion on 1 December— with helicopters. We will also establish a training centre [Interruption.] Let me finish. We are not paying a sum to train over 850 local health workers every single week; anything like that. That is very clear. As I have said, that will soon be up and running. Crucially, if we want when the economy grows, we can pay a bit more, but health workers to go to west Africa, we must have the when the economy shrinks, as it frequently did under medical evacuation capabilities to bring them home in Labour, we pay a bit less, but what is not acceptable is a the event of their becoming ill. We are putting that in ¤2 billion bill and we will not be paying it. place, and I believe that we are leading Europe on that issue. Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North ) (Con): May I remind my right hon. Friend that our net Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): May I join contribution to the European Union is already larger the Prime Minister in his remarks about the service and than our fastest growing expenditure programme on sacrifice of our servicemen and women in Afghanistan? overseas aid and we are paying that money to an That service and sacrifice must never be forgotten. May organisation that has not had its accounts signed off for I commend him on what he is doing to try to get other 19 years? Therefore, may I commend him for taking a countries to step up to the mark on contributions robust stand on this matter, and will he undertake to towards fighting Ebola? On the terms of the EU budget, make sure that Parliament gets a vote before we pay does he accept—to coin a phrase often understood another penny? in Ulster—that sometimes it is right to say no and to mean it? The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we should be seeking value for money for every The Prime Minister: Yes. I have said no in Europe: I penny that we give. Of course, we should not forget that said no to a rise in the EU budget; I said no to an entire every year we are effectively paying about £2 billion treaty; I said no to the European bail-out funds. People more because Labour gave away part of the rebate. That in Europe know that when I say no, I mean it. is what happens. Labour Front Benchers make plenty of noise now, but when they were sitting on the Government Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): Over the Benches they betrayed Britain by giving away the money. weekend, my joint listening campaign with Tom Pursglove, Let us remember: why did they give away the money? the excellent Conservative candidate for Corby, was out They gave away the money because there was a promise knocking on doors. One particular person who spoke to of reform of the common agricultural policy, and they Tom said, “I’ve been a Labour voter all my life, but got absolutely nothing. Dave has said no to paying £1.7 billion, Dave has said no to unrestricted immigration from the EU and he’s Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): Are we seriously going to give us a referendum, so for the first time ever being asked to believe that this Government have got a I’m going to vote Tory.” Does my right hon. Friend Chancellor who failed to understand the calculation of think that the rest of the country will follow that chap? drug use in the compilation of these figures, with the result that everybody in Britain is getting screwed? The Prime Minister: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his very hard work in Wellingborough and The Prime Minister: Oh, dear. I will tell the hon. next door in Corby. People can see that under this Gentleman what we have got: we have a Chancellor Government and my prime ministership—when it comes who has delivered the fastest rate of growth of any G7 to the European treaty, when it comes to the bail-out country, and we have a Chancellor who has delivered fund and when it comes to the budget—we have got a the biggest fall in unemployment since records began. I good deal for Britain. would have thought that the Labour party would want to know about more people getting into work. Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab): If after the due diligence the eventual payment that this Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): Does the country is asked to make is outside the norms, will the Prime Minister agree that this country has a proud Prime Minister give this House a vote? record of assisting countries in difficulties? What this Government have sent to west Africa to help with The Prime Minister: I am not accepting that we Ebola is just the latest example of that. Will he accept should pay anything like what has been asked. I think it that such programmes can be delivered only by individual is very important that we make that clear. I am always people—men and women from this country—going out happy to have votes in this House. They can happen there to help, and placing themselves in great danger? through Opposition days, Back-Bench days or, indeed, Young men such as Dr Oliver Johnson, who is only Government days. 28 years old, along with many other colleagues who have trained and are working in this country, have gone Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD): The Prime Minister there. We thank the Government for sending the money, said at the start of his statement that he went asking for but will the Prime Minister remember them? ¤1 billion to tackle Ebola and he got it, and that he went asking for a climate change agreement that had been The Prime Minister: My hon. and learned Friend piloted by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate makes an incredibly important point. About 650 British Change with his green growth group and he got it. Does health workers have volunteered to go to Sierra Leone that not demonstrate that leadership from the UK can to help in this way. They are people of huge courage, deliver results in Europe, and that we should stay in? 33 European Council27 OCTOBER 2014 European Council 34

The Prime Minister: I very much agree with my right cannot know what we are meant to pay. Those are the hon. Friend that, on climate change and Ebola, we facts, even if they might be inconvenient for the story demonstrated that Britain can lead in Europe and get that he wants to put across. results. However, as I explained at the press conference after the European Council, those successes were rather Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con): My constituents marred by the disappointment and, frankly, the anger would rather see the £1.7 billion spent on them and over the way in which the bill was presented. their country than on some EU bean counter. Did the Prime Minister manage to get any detail on how the Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab): shadow economy, which we are apparently doing so The Prime Minister has always made it clear that his well out of, was calculated? Are there any facts and support for EU membership in 2017 will depend on figures to support that? substantial reforms, which he will have to negotiate. To do that, he will need allies. He told the House that he The Prime Minister: Complicated calculations are had the support of the Prime Ministers of Italy, Holland, carried out by the Office for National Statistics in the Malta, Greece and other countries on the rebate. However, United Kingdom, by EUROSTAT throughout Europe the Dutch Finance Minister has said that his country and by the independent statistics organisations of every will pay, the Irish have said that they will pay and the country. That is why the figures are estimates and why Maltese have said that they will pay. If that is the kind they have to be checked so carefully. of support the Prime Minister gets from his friends, how does he think he will achieve anything for 2017? Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab): Did the Prime Minister raise with his European counterparts The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is not reflecting the need for a vibrant steel industry in the United accurately what those countries have said. They are Kingdom, and the need to ensure that companies in the deeply unhappy with the bills with which they have been United Kingdom are not threatened by asset strippers presented. They want the estimates to be re-examined who are based in Europe? and are very worried about the payments that they might have to make. The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question because one reason for fighting Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con): May for a climate change deal that focused on carbon emission I, too, take my right hon. Friend back to the beginning reductions, rather than on other targets, was so that we of his statement? Nearly four years ago, I attended the could reduce carbon at the minimum cost not only to funeral of Linda Norgrove, a young woman from the our businesses, but to households through the bills that Isle of Lewis who gave her life supporting widows and they pay. As he knows, we are helping steel producers orphans in Afghanistan. As we rightly remember the and other high energy users with a specific scheme that contribution of our forces over the past 13 years, can we has been drawn up by the Department for Business, also remember those in the NGO community, some of Innovation and Skills. whom lost their lives defending the people of Afghanistan and a number of whom will stay on to keep helping the Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): Has the people of Afghanistan and to fulfil this nation’s problem with such rows over the past 30 years not been commitments? that British Prime Ministers have been ambushed and have protested loudly, there have been useful headlines The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is absolutely in the Daily Mail and The Sun, and then two months right to raise the issue of aid workers, who have put so later, there have been shoddy compromises, usually on much into rebuilding Afghanistan. I will never forget the basis that there is no alternative under the treaties? meeting Linda Norgrove’s brave parents, who were If there really is no alternative under the treaties, is not desperately sad at the loss of their child. She put a great the obvious conclusion that the British people might be deal into Afghanistan and came very close to being tempted to say that we should leave the European rescued and brought home. I commend my right hon. Union? Friend for all the work that he did on such consular cases as a Foreign Office Minister. The Prime Minister: I am not quite as gloomy as my hon. Friend, and I think there have been occasions such Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP): The Prime Minister as when we got out of the bail-out schemes, when we said in his statement that he would check the statistics cut the European budget, and when we vetoed a treaty, and the methodology, and “crawl through this in exhaustive where Britain taking a very firm stance has sent Europe detail”. However, it is clear that the Treasury knew in a different direction. about the matter way back in May. Will he confirm that the Government let the rules relating to the own resources Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op): Will the package, which covers this area, go through the European Prime Minister take this opportunity to recognise the Council on 26 May “without discussion”, to quote the important contribution to the European Union agreement official press release? Why did he not go into these of this country’s Climate Change Act 2008, which was matters at that time? Were the Government asleep at the introduced by the Leader of the Opposition and supported wheel? Did they hope that no one would notice? subsequently by this Government? Will he also take this opportunity to tell his Back Benchers that we would not The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is simply have got the European Union agreement covering wrong. It was not until the meeting in Brussels on 28 countries if we had continued only to have national Friday night that the scale of the payment was clear. policies, and that therefore our membership of the EU Until we know what every country is required to pay, we is vital for our continent’s future? 35 European Council27 OCTOBER 2014 European Council 36

The Prime Minister: I have always supported our The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my right hon. Climate Change Act in Britain, and when I was Leader Friend that guarantee. In my view, the eurozone will do of the Opposition, I pressed Tony Blair—who then more things together. That is precisely why we need the stood at this Dispatch Box—to introduce such climate treaty change, to give Britain a better place in a European change legislation. This deal ensures that those countries Union where some members will be integrating faster. that do not have climate change legislation now have to As for the ¤300 billion package proposed by Jean-Claude live up to the expectations we have set for ourselves. Juncker, it is not very clear at the moment how much of Now what we need is for Europe to take a leading role that is public, how much is private, how much is new, in terms of China and America, as has been pointed and how much will be generated by new money into the out. European Investment Bank. We will seek further answers on that in December. Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): Does the Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): Around the Prime Minister agree that the latest £2 billion bill from table in the Brussels, did any Minister bring up in a the European Union provides a good opportunity to humanitarian way the crisis of hundreds of people remind the British people just how much it costs each dying in the Mediterranean as refugees from war, famine year for this country to belong to the European Union? and environmental disaster? European policies as a I reckon it is about £44 billion net in this Parliament whole and western policies in part have contributed this alone. That cost is just one reason why so many millions disaster. Was there any discussion of it? of people want to vote to leave the European Union. The Prime Minister: We did not have a discussion at The Prime Minister: Of course, the only way that this Council on the migration pressures in the European people will have that vote is by having a Conservative Union, but we have done so before when I have made Government after the next election, when they will get the point that some of the action taken in the Mediterranean the choice. The other point I would make is that the bill has almost encouraged people to get on to completely is lower because we have cut the EU budget, and taken unsafe craft and head off to sea. We need to ensure we that step that will constrain EU spending all the way tackle all those problems, but our aid budget does a out to 2020. The real debate that then has to be held is huge amount to try to help people stay in their countries— about whether the money we are putting into the European dealing with the sources of conflict and poverty—rather Union, and what we get out of our membership, makes than leave and seek a new life in Europe. it worth it. My view is that if we can reform the European Union there will be a strong case for staying Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD): Given the in. I say that simply because I put one simple test on Government’s success in securing the EU’s 2030 carbon these things: what will make Britain stronger and more reduction target, will the Prime Minister say how we influential in the world? What will enable us to act on will build on the momentum of the agreement, which the things that we care about? That is the test that we demonstrates that the world’s largest trading bloc is should put and argue about. committed to those reductions, to get China, the US and others to sign up?

Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): The Prime Minister: We have an opportunity to use The Prime Minister and the Government told the European the action Europe has taken—the 40% reductions by Scrutiny Committee that they were going to have a 2030—to argue that America and China need to take blocking minority to stop the port services regulation their steps to play into the Paris talks that will take by which the European Union would take over regulatory place late in 2015. It is obviously difficult, because the services in all the ports. That is opposed by every EU cannot exactly have an agreement and hold back employer association around the ports, and by all some of its eventual offer, but once again we have employment organisations and trade unions. The Prime shown that we, some of the most advanced countries in Minister failed to get that blocking minority. Is that not the world, are prepared to put our own house in order. an example of what is happening? He does not have the confidence of other people in Europe to stand up to the Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): I presume the Prime European Union. Minister is in favour of Britain remaining in the European arrest warrant, and that he agrees with the Home Secretary. The Prime Minister: That is simply not true. What we A nod will suffice. have done in case after case is build alliances in order to get the outcomes that we need within the single market. The Prime Minister rose— Of course, that has been made more difficult by the fact that the Government he supported gave away veto after Chris Bryant: I do not want an answer yet—I have veto after veto, but we are effective in building minorities not finished. Presuming I am right and that the Prime and getting what we need. Minister supports Britain remaining in the European arrest warrant, and presuming that many of his Back Benchers do not support him, I have a pleasant surprise Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con): for him: he should table the measure next week before The Prime Minister will know that the President, Jean- the Rochester and Strood by-election, and we will vote Claude Juncker, has a ¤300 billion investment plan that it through for him. European officials are now openly saying is the start of fiscal union. Will the Prime Minister assure me and The Prime Minister: I am not sure there was a question British taxpayers that the UK will never become part of in the end. Do I just need to do the nod, or what would an EU fiscal union while he is our Prime Minister? the hon. Gentleman like? 37 European Council27 OCTOBER 2014 European Council 38

Several hon. Members rose— Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co- op): We have heard a great deal about what the Prime Mr Speaker: What a delicious choice. I call Mr Jacob Minister will not pay in relation to the EU budget, so Rees-Mogg. can he give us any indication of what he is prepared to pay? Will he confirm that the UK would face fines if Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): The anything was not paid by the appropriate date? Prime Minister has saved the European Union from the crime of living off immoral earnings. That has made The Prime Minister: I was very clear in the statement him enormously popular. Will he follow up his popularity that every year we have these adjustments, and they are by refusing the European arrest warrant, and most normally modest adjustments, sometimes up a bit, importantly by telling the Home Office that it is not sometimes down a bit. What is not acceptable is a bill befitting a great Department of State to give briefings for ¤2 billion with only a month to go. that are not entirely accurate factually? Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con): Has The Prime Minister: We need to have a proper discussion not the time now come to make it clear to the EU that about how we keep the country safe given all the risks Britain will not even consider any form of rebate of we face and given that we have secured a massive act of £1.7 billion until the EU gets its shambolic accounts repatriating powers from Brussels to Britain in the huge properly audited and signed off? Otherwise, how can amount of opt-outs in justice and home affairs, which I we have any faith in any of the figures produced by that am sure he supports. My point on the European arrest organisation? warrant is that we have made changes to it, so we can now refuse arrest warrants in minor cases. British judges The Prime Minister: Obviously, I have great sympathy are able to consider whether extradition is proportionate with my hon. Friend on the fact that the EU accounts and can block any arrest warrant where the incident are not signed off every year, and further work is does not amount to a crime in UK law. Those things necessary on that front. What we need is some urgent have changed since the arrest warrant was first put work to get to the bottom of what these figures are before the House. meant to say, how they were drawn up and whether any errors were involved. I have been very clear about not paying on 1 December—not paying anything like the Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): As has been number that has been named. long predicted, the eurozone is proving to be an economic disaster, dragging down both the European economy Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): As the leader of and the world economy. It now appears that 25 eurozone our country and on a matter of such national importance, banks are on the brink of failure, and the long-term does the Prime Minister believe that he should have future of the euro is in serious doubt. Is the Prime been informed about the amount of the contribution Minister advising his colleagues—his fellow Prime Ministers when other members of his Government were informed? in Europe—of the advantages of a national currency? The Prime Minister: The fact that a memo was drawn The Prime Minister: I think my colleagues in Europe up in the Treasury on Tuesday and I was told on well know my views about the euro. My point—I made Thursday would be instantaneous, compared with a it at the European Council—is that we need a combination new Labour gap, and compared with Budgets being of structural reforms to improve the performance of prepared by the then Chancellor for months and the labour markets, the benefit of which we have seen here Prime Minister being told sometimes just a few hours in the UK; setting and meeting targets on reducing before the Budget was delivered, even after it had gone budget deficits; and an active monetary policy, which to the printers. The hon. Gentleman does not have a leg has been hugely helpful here and in America. The steps to stand on. we have seen in Europe are welcome but, frankly, I would like to see more. Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that significant repatriation from the Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): I congratulate EU is highly unlikely? I and, it seems, most of the the Prime Minister on standing up for Britain in Brussels. country feel that common sense needs to prevail. We Did he hear Pierre Lellouche, the former Europe Minister should go back to a trade agreement, as we originally for France, say on BBC Radio 4 yesterday that it was had, and drop this whole socialist nightmare that leads crazy for the European Commission to reward a failing to massive bills, which he is now facing. socialist French Government for their economic failure while penalising the UK’s Conservative Government The Prime Minister: It is worth one last effort to try for their economic success? to renegotiate Britain’s place inside the EU, to give the British public a proper choice between a reformed The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an important membership of the EU or leaving. That is what people point. I was so surprised when I heard that statement want. That is what I will deliver. I think it is possible to that I got together a clear copy. Pierre Lellouche says get a deal that would make it in Britain’s interests to that the unemployment rate in Britain stay. My hon. Friend may take a different view, but let “has gone down to half what it is in France. The growth rate is us get the deal and then trust the people. four times what it is in France—and we go and punish the British? It’s madness.” Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op): This is a huge outbreak of good, sound thinking across The then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, now the channel. sitting next to the Prime Minister, sent a letter to Lord 39 European Council27 OCTOBER 2014 European Council 40

[Seema Malhotra] Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): May I wish you, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister many Boswell on 11 March this year noting the UK’s GNI happy returns on the 100th anniversary today of Dylan reservations, the Eurostat verification visit to the UK in Thomas’s birth in Swansea? Will the Prime Minister February and the fact that the Government “give high support the Bill I will present today to provide for priority” to addressing these issues. If these issues were greater scrutiny by this House and the European Parliament indeed a high priority, could it be that in the interim the of international trade agreements, including the transatlantic Treasury dropped the ball, and could that be why trade and investment partnership, so that such issues Britain is in this situation today? are not decided by eurocrats and negotiators from the US, which may lead to multinationals suing the Government The Prime Minister: Very well read, but we have dealt for passing laws that protect citizens and workers? Should with this issue already. It is only when the figures are we look at it, or should it just be the eurocrats? available from all the European Union countries that it is possible to see what the net contribution for Britain The Prime Minister: Let me join the hon. Gentleman will be. It is only at that point that that judgment can be in paying tribute to Dylan Thomas and to Tom Hollander made. for his superb performance in the drama about the former’s life in America. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to scrutinise TTIP properly, but we David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con): I must do so on the basis of the truth rather than scare congratulate the Prime Minister on being the first Prime stories. I worry that a lot of scare stories are going Minister since the great Margaret Thatcher to say no to around about health services, food safety or investor Europe. Does my right hon. Friend agree with my protection clauses, and perhaps his Bill and closer scrutiny constituents, who have just given me a survey to say that can lay some of those to rest. the only way to vote for an in/out referendum on Europe is to vote Conservative in 2017? Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): We already hand over the best part of £20 billion a year to be part of an The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. Whatever inward-facing, backward-looking protection racket, view people take about whether Britain should be in the propping up inefficient European businesses and French European Union or out of the European Union, there farmers. The British public do not expect the Prime is only one way to secure that referendum. Minister to hand over a bit less money or to hand it over a bit later: they expect him to tell the European Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab): Given that the recalculation Union to stick the money where the sun does not shine. of GNI has been known about for two years, it is a bit What is the worst that the European Union could do if rich for the Prime Minister to say that he wants to we did that? Ask us to leave? In my dreams! understand the detail of the methodology. Should he not have been engaging with that recalculation and The Prime Minister: I do sometimes wish that my investigating its exact implications on behalf of the hon. Friend would tell us what he really thinks, instead British people? of this shrinking violet approach. We do not necessarily agree on the future, but we do agree that there is only The Prime Minister: As I have explained, these one way to give the British people that choice. calculations take place every year, but not normally on the scale that has happened this year. It was only on the Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): We have Friday before the European Council meeting that the learned that of the upward revisions to GDP £4 billion figures were available. is attributable to illegal drugs and £5 billion to prostitution. Is that the great fruit of the Tories’ long-term economic plan? Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con): I commend the Prime Minister for his rejection of this ridiculous ¤2 billion surcharge. I assume that the success of his long-term The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady looks at the economic plan will lead to a similar adjustment every figures, she will see that quite a big change came about year, so how can he ensure that that will not happen? because of the way in which charitable income and charities’ finances are calculated. As I have said, the figures are horrendously complicated, because some of The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a very them date back to 2002, and some are based on a good point. If an economy outperforms other economies, fundamental reassessment of how these things should that can lead to an increase in contributions. We have be measured. But we will get to the bottom of what the obviously seen an out-performance of the UK economy, figures mean only when we look at what happens in which means that it was likely—as I said in my every single EU country. statement—we would be asked to pay a little bit more, but not ¤2 billion more. That is the figure that is Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con): Be it in Leeds completely unacceptable—[Interruption.] or Brussels, I am pleased to see that our Prime Minister is no push-over. Every facet of the EU budget—how it Mr Speaker: Order. Front Benchers on both sides are is calculated and how it is spent—is horrendously in a very excitable state. They should take their cue from complicated, opaque and remarkably unsatisfactory. If the Leader of the House, who is sitting in statesmanlike the Prime Minister does not get what he wants by the fashion and from the hon. Member for Kingston upon diplomatic route, I suggest that the British people would Hull East (Karl Turner) who—uncharacteristically, I be happy for our country to be infracted by the European must testify—is not shrieking. Commission and behind him 100% in the court case. 41 European Council27 OCTOBER 2014 European Council 42

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con): I was out selling support on the issue of the EU payments. May I also poppies in Glossop on Saturday and constituent after thank him for what he said about the incident in Leeds? constituent came to me to express their outrage at this It would be nice to put on the record for once the debt I unacceptable demand for ¤2 billion. In fact, one constituent owe to the close protection team who look after me and even likened the EU to Dick Turpin, the difference the very good job they do. I was in a meeting in Leeds being that Dick Turpin had the decency to wear a mask. speaking to a group of city leaders and other politicians. Does the Prime Minister agree that the view expressed John Prescott was in the room as I gave the speech. As I to me by my High Peak constituents represents the view left the room I thought the moment of maximum across the country that this bill is unacceptable? danger had probably passed, but clearly that was not the case. [Laughter.] The Prime Minister: I entirely understand the reaction of my hon. Friend’s constituents. It is exactly the reaction Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab): The Prime I found in my constituency at the weekend: people Minister heralded the appointment of Lord Hill to a outraged that so much money could be asked for with key economic portfolio in the Commission as evidence so little time to pay it and with so little thought for the of his influence in Europe. Will he therefore explain to taxpayers who would be called on to do so. the House why the overwhelming majority of Conservative MEPs last week refused to support the nomination of Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab): Some years Lord Hill and other commissioners, despite his attempts ago, this country voted for the Common Market not to persuade them otherwise? this bureaucratic nonsense, so why does the Prime Minister not grasp the nettle and have a referendum on the day The Prime Minister: First of all, let me agree with the of the election next year and let the British people first half of the hon. Gentleman’s question. It is excellent decide? that Lord Hill has the crucial portfolio of financial stability and financial services, including much of banking The Prime Minister: There is a clear message: vote union. This is exactly the sort of job that Britain should Tory in Blyth Valley and get a referendum. have in the European Commission to maximise our influence. That is very important. MEPs vote for a Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con): In a few months, the range of different reasons and I am sure some of them Prime Minister will begin the serious business of were bearing in mind other elements at the Commission, renegotiating our relationship with the European Union. but I am clear that it is a great success for Britain that Does my right hon. Friend truly believe that the leaders our commissioner has such an important job. of the European Commission, in asking for this vast amount of money, have any understanding of how Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): There exasperated the British taxpayers are at continuous has been significant speculation that the ¤2.1 billion demands for money that could be spent on British surcharge is politically motivated in terms of timing if hospitals and British schools? not amount. Does my right hon. Friend give that any credence? If so, does he think that legal redress could The Prime Minister: The Commission will see how result? strongly people feel. One of the great puzzles is that on Thursday night, when this emerged, the President of The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an important the current Commission, José Manuel Barroso, knew point to which I do not know the answer. Obviously, nothing about the payments, which raises interesting these numbers, which are estimates, were meant to be questions in itself. Clearly, the Commission needs to under intense discussion and scrutiny, and then have a understand that this is taxpayers’ money and that it is proper announcement. Instead, they came out leaked to not acceptable to behave in this way. a newspaper on Thursday evening. I do not know who was behind that or what the intent was, but what one Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op): has to do is act on the information one has. As soon as I I welcome the Prime Minister’s decision not to pay the heard about it, I assembled the coalition of Italians, ¤2 billion and his statement “or anything like it”. I wish Dutch and others to make sure that this is properly to be helpful. Would it not help his own position if he looked at. agreed to bring back for a vote in the House the amount he finally proposes to negotiate? Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): In spite of the Prime Minister’s protestations, Treasury Ministers have known The Prime Minister: I think we are some way away about this budget contribution for months. Now that from that, because we have to go through the estimates, the Prime Minister has finally caught up and presumably find out what is wrong with the figures and how we can been briefed, will he tell us what changes and concessions best change them, and go through all those processes his Ministers have asked for? before we reach that eventuality.

The Prime Minister: The Whips’ handouts have been James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con): effective because lots of people have read them out, but Notwithstanding this unacceptable demand from the I am afraid they are based on a fundamental European Commission, does the Prime Minister agree misunderstanding. It was only at the meeting on Friday that economic stagnation in the eurozone poses a significant in Brussels that the numbers on net obligations became risk to the UK’s economic recovery, and do we not need clear. That is the point. Until everybody’s calculations to redouble our efforts to encourage our European are known, what Britain would be asked to pay cannot neighbours to make the necessary economic reforms to be known. stimulate growth across the eurozone? 43 European Council27 OCTOBER 2014 European Council 44

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our growth figures came out during the European right. The description of it as a “technical adjustment” Council and demonstrated that Britain was growing at is what caused the Italian Prime Minister, me and the more than 3% this year and that manufacturing, Dutch Prime Minister to really be very angry. This is a construction and services were all contributing to that huge amount of money. It was ¤2 billion for Britain, growth. There are very few countries in Europe with and—from memory—for Holland, a much smaller country, growth rates anything like that. Indeed, there is a risk to it was ¤600 million. This is serious money, not some Britain from contraction in the eurozone, and as I said small adjustment. in answer to an earlier question, we need the eurozone to have not just proper fiscal targets, but an active Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) monetary policy and structural reforms to get more of (Lab): The Prime Minister’s statement on important its people back to work. threats such as climate change and Ebola shows just how important it is for us to work with our European Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab): When neighbours. However, do not the points made by the the Prime Minister says that the bill came as a bombshell, right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) the House must surely accept his word, but did his and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish officials not give him in advance an estimate of the bill, (Andrew Gwynne) that the Treasury knew about this and if they did, how much was it? EU surcharge well beforehand and that the Office for National Statistics was supplying data months ago show The Prime Minister: They did not, and they could not that the Prime Minister is just shedding crocodile tears? have known, because it was only at the Friday meeting, The Prime Minister: Where the hon. Lady is right is the week before the European Council, that the figures that of course there is a process for statistics authorities became apparent; that was when what the Commission to share statistics across Europe. That happens every was proposing for every other EU country could be year, but the key moment is when those statistics come seen. As has been explained, the Treasury then drew up together and we can see what a country’s draft obligations a memorandum on the Tuesday before the European would be. That is what happened. I know there is a Council, and I was told on the Thursday. Those are the desperate search for a “Who knew what, when?” story, facts, even if they are inconvenient for those who want but I think Opposition Members are missing the point—put some great conspiracy and who believe that in the forward so brilliantly by the hon. Member for Vauxhall wonderful days of Blair and Brown information was (Kate Hoey)—that it is the bottom-line issue that matters. shared so openly across government. I am afraid that Labour does not want to go to that, because it is not does not stand up to the facts. prepared ever to face up to the challenges we are sometimes set in Europe. Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): ITV News is reporting online that Mr Dominik, the EU Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con): Does my right Budget Commissioner, has confirmed that UK civil hon. Friend agree that the cost of Labour in this context servants knew the precise revised sum some weeks ago. since 2005 has been a reduction in our rebate of nearly Given that the Prime Minister acknowledges that he £10.5 billion and that a further cost of Labour would be knew the mechanisms in place, and given that Treasury its Front Benchers caving in and paying this enormous officials knew the precise sum weeks ago, what part of it sum if they were in government, something to which my did the First Lord of the Treasury not understand? constituents in Dudley South say no?

The Prime Minister: I am glad the hon. Gentleman The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely raises the point about the lunchtime news programmes, right. Labour gave away £7 billion of our rebate and because not all of them have been accurate. One made our ability to veto what was not in our national interest, the assertion that these numbers were discussed at the signed Britain up to a euro bail-out mechanism to bail October ECOFIN, but that is simply not the case. As I out countries that were in the eurozone, and agreed to said, the key meeting was an officials’ meeting in Brussels increases in EU budgets year after year. This Government on the Friday before the European Council—that was have taken a very different approach. the first time the numbers were seen—and the Treasury Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): drew up a memorandum on the Tuesday. One would My constituents, like people across the country, are expect the Treasury to look at such estimates and work doubly astounded, first, that our country effectively out an action plan to deal with them, and then the faces a fine for its success and hard work and, secondly, Prime Minister is told. That is how things work. I do that the money would be used to prop up the failed not know why Opposition Members are looking for a economic policies of the likes of François Hollande— mystery here; it is very straightforward. policies supported by the Leader of the Opposition in 2012. Can the Prime Minister assure my constituents Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): Is not the fact that that we will say no to the demand to pay this bill from EU Commission officials can describe a demand for the European Union? Instead of coming to Britain for a ¤2 billion as “an adjustment” an indication of just how bail-out, the European Union should first of all put its far they have lost touch with ordinary voters, not just in own house in order. Britain, but throughout the whole EU? This is an accountability issue. In challenging these payments, is The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes important my right hon. Friend standing up not just for the points. I have made clear the approach we are going to citizens of Britain, but for citizens throughout the whole take, and we should also continue to pursue the economic EU who want the EU to succeed, but want it to be more policies that are making Britain such a strong and accountable? growing success. 45 European Council27 OCTOBER 2014 European Council 46

Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): There was David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con): It is a big huge support across the Yorkshire dales for the Prime success that we have managed to get the EU to move Minister’s strong position in the Brussels meeting. Can towards decarbonisation targets and away from renewables he clarify whether he got any messages of support for targets, but the Prime Minister may be aware that what that position from the Leader of the Opposition and was agreed on Friday is considerably less onerous than whether there was any clarity on whether Labour would the targets set out in our own Climate Change Act 2008. pay this sum? Does he have any intention of reconciling those two positions over the next few years? Mr Speaker: Order. I think the questions really ought to focus on the policy of the Government and not be a The Prime Minister: First of all, what we have agreed kind of back-door way of trying to talk about Opposition is less onerous than the package negotiated by a previous policies. It is improper, and unfortunately it was not Government that set out binding targets for 2020 that very subtly disguised. have added costs to bills. My advice is that what we agreed is broadly consistent with our carbon budgets; Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con): I we can achieve what we will be expected to achieve congratulate my right hon. Friend on his strength of within our carbon budgets. leadership on this specific issue, but will he confirm that if this ¤2 billion bill is not reduced or is increased, he Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): My constituents will convert his “No, no, no” to a “Never”? do not give a Yorkshire pudding about who said what and when. What they do care about is Labour-run The Prime Minister: I have been very clear: we are not Kirklees council looking at not filling in potholes, consulting paying this on 1 December; nor are we paying an on whether to keep libraries open and struggling on amount of this nature. We are very clear about that. If, funding. Will the Prime Minister, on behalf of my through these processes, we have to pay a little bit more constituents, continue to pledge to say no to this huge or a little bit less, as we do every year, that is a different bill, so that we can spend money right here on our matter. I could not have been clearer about this. constituents?

Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con): The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely Touching on economic issues, in paragraph 7 of the right: people want us to stand up against unacceptable conclusions, the Prime Minister will be aware that the bills from Brussels and make sure that money is spent EU recently granted Pakistan favourable trading status, on our people’s priorities. linked to its basic human rights. In the light of the recent decision by the high court in Pakistan to sentence Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con): I congratulate under its completely unacceptable blasphemy laws Asia my right hon. Friend on his response to this outrageous Bibi, a Christian mother of five children, to death by £1.7 billion demand. Clearly, the EU is similar to the hanging, 45 Members of Parliament from across the Labour party, in that it wishes to penalise success and House have written to the Government of Pakistan reward failure. When he renegotiates our terms of urging them to review this miscarriage of justice. Will membership, will he ensure that—second only to dealing the Prime Minister ensure that our Government push with the free movement of labour—he will seek to Pakistan to review this miscarriage of justice? reduce the power of officials, introduce real democratic accountability and return powers to this Parliament? The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. As he knows, we have been pushing The Prime Minister: I think there is a lot in that the Pakistan Government to amend the blasphemy agenda that we need properly to engage with. We have laws, and I will be speaking to the Prime Minister set out the things I most want to renegotiate. It is tomorrow. obviously going to be difficult, but as I have said, it is worth doing that to give the British people a proper Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab) rose— choice between a reformed in and out.

Mr Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con): I thank the Prime at the start of the statement, I will call him, but if he Minister on behalf of thousands of my constituents in was not, I will not. Winchester. Seemingly, many of them of contacted me this weekend to say thank you for his defence of their Mr Cunningham indicated assent. money. To borrow a current phrase, the European Union is treating Great Britain like a kind of branch office. Mr Speaker: He was. I will very happily take his Does the Prime Minister understand—I know it is word. difficult—that many of my constituents see this as a further reason why, with a heavy heart, this club is just Mr Cunningham: Is the Prime Minister prepared to not working for us any more? compromise over the rebate, because so far he has made no statement to rule that out? The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says about his constituents. I think it is The Prime Minister: I hate to say it, but had the hon. worth while having that renegotiation so that we can Gentleman been here throughout, he would have heard give the British people a choice. We demonstrated at the my answer, which is this. Paying a little bit more or a European Council that when it comes to climate change little bit less because of a normal annual adjustment is and Ebola, we were able to push for action that will one thing; ¤2 billion is quite another. benefit people in our country and across the continents. 47 European Council27 OCTOBER 2014 European Council 48

[The Prime Minister] some sort of additional payment, but the scale is completely unacceptable. As for the lessons that can be learnt from I do not accept that Britain cannot win in Europe; we the success of what we are doing here in Britain, I think can, but we need to make sure that we have the right that there are examples that can be followed in the rest deal to get public support behind this organisation. of Europe. Clearly, what happened before the weekend in terms of this bill is not helpful. Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con): The constituents to whom I spoke over the weekend, on the doorstep and in (Harlow) (Con): I thank the Prime community meetings, were certainly not amused by the Minister for standing up to Brussels and for the cut in irony of a surcharge of £1.7 billion from the European the EU budget. Given that the EU has had a negative Union having to be paid because our economy is so impact on jobs and wages, particularly for low earners, successful, and they were very much behind my right is it not the EU’s responsibility to save hard-working hon. Friend in wanting to say no to the payment. Does taxpayers money rather than try to increase the taxes the Prime Minister agree that we should take no lessons they pay? Does this not make the case, which he has from the Labour party, who gave away £7 billion in made so well, for an in/out referendum on the European terms of our rebate in return for absolutely no reform of Union? the European Union?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is on to a very The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. important point—that because of the difficulties in the Not only was that money given away in terms of the eurozone, people have seen Europe as the source of rebate, but we saw EU budgets go up and up year after some of our problems rather than the source of year because of a failure to control spending. That is opportunities. That puts even further pressure on the the lesson that we must learn. We have to be very tough EU to recognise that and to cut its cloth accordingly to on these things in Europe, which Labour consistently try to save people money rather than cost them money. failed to be.

Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con): Annexe II of the Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con): Gleneagles agreement of 2005 states: Does the Prime Minister agree that if we are to keep “The EU has pledged to reach 0.7 per cent” Britain secure from the threat of Ebola at home, we of overseas development assistance as a percentage of need to contain it abroad? Should we not recognise the gross national income by 2015. Given that we are nearly hundreds of people in our national health service who in 2015, will my right hon. Friend confirm whether the have volunteered to go out to west Africa, and congratulate Commission has been sending out payment reminders them on their work in keeping us secure? on behalf of the poorest people on earth—in the case of Germany, for $11.8 billion a year; in the case of France, The Prime Minister: I think it quite extraordinary for $8 billion a year, and in the case of the United that 650 people in our country have already volunteered Kingdom, zero? to go. As I said in my statement, we are sending out troops to help with the logistics and the planning. We The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has made a must ensure that the medevac proposals are really robust, good point. We made a promise to the poorest in the so that if any people do get into trouble, they can either world, and we have kept our promise to the poorest in be given excellent treatment in one of our facilities in the world. Other countries that made those pledges at the country, or be brought home. that meeting—including Italy, France and Germany—have not kept their promises, and they should answer for Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): I welcome the agreement themselves. When it comes to issues such as Ebola, entered into between the United Kingdom and France however, it is necessary to spend money quite rapidly. I to tackle the chaos at Calais, where the mayor has lost would say to people in our country that it is not just our control of the streets. May I urge him to initiate a moral responsibility to help people in west Africa, but it pan-European push to tackle the evil of human trafficking, is essential in order to prevent Ebola from coming here. which is so often organised, and to tackle countries A country needs to have deep pockets and resources in such as Italy—which is the first safe country for treaty order to take the action that is required. purposes—rather than allowing people to be waved through to Calais? Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con): The unwelcome scale of the surcharge does at least suggest that the European The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely Commission has recognised the strength of the British right. As well as having proper controls at Calais and at economy, the value of the long-term economic plan, our own border, we must ensure that when people arrive and the success of the Government’s approach to reducing in the European Union, they claim asylum and register our deficit. When the Prime Minister seeks to recalibrate in the first country that they reach rather than being the scale and pace, will he underline the need for the passported through to the channel ports. European Union to adopt the same economic strategies as us? Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) rose— The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is doing a very good job in finding a silver lining for this cloud, namely Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con) rose— the fact that our economy is growing. As I said in my statement, that was going to involve our having to make Mr Speaker: Mr Michael Ellis. 49 European Council 27 OCTOBER 2014 50

Michael Ellis: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Point of Order You were spoilt for choice then. Does the Prime Minister agree that the euro bureaucrats 4.54 pm have made a mistake? They thought that they could Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): On a push this Prime Minister into doing what a Labour point of order, Mr Speaker. During the Prime Minister’s Government clearly would do, and accepting everything statement, the Treasury has confirmed that its officials that was said. This Prime Minister and this Government were told, but that the junior civil servants did not pass will not be treated like that. They will not be treated like the information further up the chain of command. a branch office; they will not be treated in the way in Perhaps when the Prime Minister goes back to No. 10 which the Labour party has treated its Scottish comrades. Downing street he can fully apprise himself of these new facts and then come back, out of courtesy to the House, to correct the record and fully apprise us of who The Prime Minister: Labour did provide a rather odd knew what and when, and why the Prime Minister, as distraction over the weekend, with the extraordinary the First Lord of the Treasury, was not told. meltdown of its party in Scotland. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we must demonstrate that when something Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman. No judgment unacceptable like this is put on the table, we are willing is required in this matter by the Chair, but he has put his to say no. point on the record. We will leave it there.

Mr Hollobone: May I inform the Prime Minister that BILL PRESENTED the clear and strong view from the Kettering constituency is that absolutely no way should we be paying this extra INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS (SCRUTINY) money? Before he goes back to Brussels, may I encourage Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) him to have a good rummage through the cupboards in Geraint Davies, supported by Nia Griffith, Kelvin Downing street, dig out the prime ministerial handbag Hopkins, Mr Jim Cunningham, Mark Lazarowicz, which was last deployed by its original owner in the Sir Gerald Kaufman, Mr Mike Weir, Jim Sheridan, Jim early 1990s, and clonk it around the head of the Dowd, Paul Flynn, Mr Roger Godsiff and Mark Durkan, Commission? presented a Bill to require scrutiny of and enable amendments to international trade agreements, including The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has made an investor state dispute settlements, by the European and excellent suggestion. I am not sure that the handbag is UK Parliaments; and for connected purposes. actually passed down in that way, but the metaphorical Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on handbag is still available, and there are times when it Friday 16 January 2015, and to be printed (Bill 108). needs to be used. 51 27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 52

Recall of MPs Bill Amendment 47, page 1, line 16, at end insert “or, (c) the MP has been convicted of any offence under section 10 (Offence of providing false or misleading information for allowance claims) of the Parliamentary Standards (Clauses Nos. 1 to 5 and new Clauses and new Act 2009.” Schedules relating to how an MP becomes This amendment adds a further recall petition trigger to the Bill, subject to a recall process) where an MP is found guilty of an offence under section 10 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 for making a claim for expenses Considered in Committee or allowances that they know to be false or misleading in some material respect. [DAME DAWN PRIMAROLO in the Chair] Amendment 45, page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (4) and insert— Clause 1 ‘(4) The second recall condition is that the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period and— HOW AN MP BECOMES SUBJECT TO A RECALL PETITION PROCESS (a) where the period is expressed as a number of sitting days, the period specified is a period of at least 4.56 pm 10 sitting days, or (b) in any other case, the period specified (however expressed) Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con): I beg to is a period of at least 14 days.” move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out This amendment reduces the length of suspension required to from “becomes” to end of Clause and insert— trigger a recall petition from 21 sitting days to 10 sitting days and “the subject of a recall referendum where— from 28 days to 14 days. (a) a notice of intent to recall, signed by a number of Amendment 39, page 1, line 18, leave out “orders” persons not less than the effective number (5% of and insert “has ordered.” persons in member’s parliamentary constituency entitled to vote), in accordance with section (Notice of intent Amendment 43, page 1, line 24, at end insert— to recall) of this Act, has been deposited with a ‘( ) The third recall condition is that— petition officer, and (a) an election court has considered a petition claiming (b) 20% of persons entitled to vote have then validly signed that the MP has committed an act which, had it been a recall petition in accordance with section (Notice of committed in England and Wales, would have intent to recall) of this Act. constituted misconduct in public office, and (3) In this Act “recall petition” means a petition calling, in (b) the court has determined, prima facie, there is a case to terms determined under section 9(4), for a member to be subject be answered, and to a recall referendum. (c) the court has notified the Speaker of its decision under (4) The member’s seat becomes vacant and a by-election held sub-section (b).” where, in accordance with section 15 of this Act, the majority of Amendments 42 and 43 and NC6 and NC7 form part of a group of people who have voted in a recall referendum, vote in favour of amendments and new clauses which provides a route for recall for the member being recalled from Parliament. members of the public independent of any parliamentary (5) The provision made by or under this Act does not affect committee, or criminal convictions. It allows for an alternative and other ways in which a Member’s seat may be vacated.”. additional trigger for the recall process which provides direct access This amendment changes the Bill to remove the proposed whereby one hundred constituents may petition an Electoral Court conditions of recall on the grounds of imprisonment or suspension in the case of improper behaviour or gross dereliction of duty on by the House to the decision making of constituency voters. It sets the part of an MP, and seeks to avoid any conflict with the out the essential three stages - notice of intent to recall (5% of provisions of the Bill of Rights. voters), recall petition (20% of voters) and then a referendum. Amendment 40, page 2, line 2, after “starts”, insert Only if all three stages are passed is there a by-election. “or started” The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means Amendment 49, page 2, line 5, at end insert— (Dame Dawn Primarolo): With this it will be convenient ‘(5A) The third recall condition is where an MP is also— to discuss the following: (a) a Member of the Scottish Parliament, Amendment 42, page 1, line 4, leave out “or second” (b) a Member of the National Assembly for Wales, and insert “, second, or third” (c) a Member of the Northern Ireland Legislative Amendments 42 and 43 and NC6 and NC7 form part of a group of Assembly, amendments and new clauses which provides a route for recall for (d) a Member of the London Assembly, members of the public independent of any parliamentary committee, or criminal convictions. It allows for an alternative and (e) a directly elected Mayor, additional trigger for the recall process which provides direct access (f) a local government Councillor, whereby one hundred constituents may petition an Electoral Court (g) a member of a Parish Council, or in the case of improper behaviour or gross dereliction of duty on the part of an MP, and seeks to avoid any conflict with the (h) a member of the European Parliament provisions of the Bill of Rights. and the Speaker receives or otherwise takes notice of the Amendment 48, page 1, line 4, after “second”, insert fact that that such an MP has been “or third.” suspended from a role mentioned in this subsection for a Amendment 41, page 1, line 10, at end insert— period equivalent to, or greater than, that specified in subsection (4). ‘(2A) No action shall be initiated against an MP in relation to a recall petition process on the basis, or as a result of votes cast, (5B) The Secretary of State may amend the list of bodies in speeches made or any text submitted for tabling by such an MP, subsection 5A by an order laid before the House of Commons within, or as a part of, a parliamentary proceeding.” and made under the affirmative resolution procedure.” 53 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 54

This amendment adds a further recall petition trigger to the Bill, New clause 2—Promoter’s statement of reason and where an MP has been suspended from another elected role or Member’s statement in reply— office for an equivalent or greater number of days than is set out in Clause 1, subsection (4). (NB Amendment 45 seeks to reduce that ‘(1) A notice of intent to recall may be deposited with a period.) petition officer by a person (“the promoter”): Amendment 46, in clause 2, page 2, line 16, leave out (a) who promotes the recall from Parliament of the member to whom the notice relates; paragraph (b) (b) who is entitled to vote on the day it is deposited as an This amendment removes the exemption from recall petition in the elector at a parliamentary election in the constituency case of an MP who receives a custodial sentence but for a crime to which the notice relates; and committed before this Act comes into force. (c) whose name appears on the notice. Amendment 44, in clause 5, page 4, line 11, leave out “second” and insert “, second, or third” (2) The promoter must ensure that the signing sheet for a notice of intent to recall include s a statement of reasons for New clause 1— Notice of intent to recall— calling for the member’s recall to Parliament (“The promoter’s ‘(1) A notice of intent to recall is to read as follows— statement of reasons”). “If you agree that [name], the member of the House of (3) The member may respond to the statement of reasons in a Commons for [constituency] should be subject to written statement in reply (“member’s statement in reply”) sent a recall petition, please sign below”. to the petition officer after the notice of intent to recall has been (2) A notice of intent may be deposited with the petition deposited with that officer. officer by a person who promotes the call for the member to be (4) The notice of petition sent out under section 8(1) must be recalled from Parliament (“the promoter”). accompanied by— (3) A notice of intent to recall deposited under subsection (2) (a) the promoter’s statement of reasons, and must be accompanied by a declaration made by the promoter, verifying that to the best of that person‘s knowledge the notice is (b) any statement in reply if provided to the petition in accordance with this Act and any regulations made under it. officer within 2 working days of the notices being sent out. (4) A person who makes a declaration under subsection (3) where that person knows that the declaration is false or is (5) The statement of reason and any statement in reply must reckless as to that fact, commits an offence. not exceed 200 words each and must be made available by the petition officer at the designated places throughout the signing (5) As soon as reasonably practicable after a notice of intent to period.” recall has been deposited with the petition officer— (a) the petition officer shall, in accordance with This amendment makes provision for the person who deposits the subsection (6) determine whether the notice of intent notice of intent to recall with the petition officer, known as the to recall is effective, and promoter, to include with the notice, a statement of reasons. The member then has a right of reply and both the statement of reasons (b) if so, the petition officer shall send a copy of the notice and any statement in reply must be available with a recall petition to the member. throughout the signing period. (6) A notice of intent to recall is effective for the purposes of Amendment (a) to new clause 2, line 11 at end this Act if the petition officer is satisfied that the number of insert— persons who have validly signed the notice of intent to recall is not less than the effective number determined in accordance with “(a) the statement of reasons shall not include reasons subsection (9). relating to the Member’s freedom of expression within his/her Parliamentary role such as those (7) But subsection (5) shall not apply if it would require the expressed through speeches and votes. petition officer to determine that the notice of intent to recall is effective at a time— (b) Where the petition officer considers that a statement (a) within the period of 7 months ending with the polling may contravene (a) he may refer the statement to the day for the next parliamentary general election; Speaker whose decision shall be final.” (b) when the MP is already subject to a recall petition To ensure that recall procedure is not commenced because a process, or constituent does not agree with the Member’s political or personal views. (c) When the MP’s seat has already been vacated (whether by the MP’s disqualification or death, or otherwise). New clause 6—The third recall condition; method of (8) For the purposes of this section a person (“P”) validly signs petitioning an election court— a notice of intent to recall if— ‘(1) This section applies when persons allege conduct by an (a) P signs the notice within the period commencing 28 days MP which constitutes misconduct in public office. prior to the date upon which the notice is deposited (2) A petition under this section may be presented by one with the petition officer and ending on that day, and hundred or more of those who are registered as electors in the (b) P signs the notice on a day on which P would be relevant constituency. entitled to vote as an elector at a parliamentary (3) The petition shall be in the prescribed form, state the election in the constituency. prescribed matters and be signed by the petitioners, and shall be (9) In each year, the petition officer of each constituency in presented to the High Court, or to the Court of Session, or to the England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland shall on the High Court of Northern Ireland, depending on whether the relevant day, determine the number that is equal to 5% of the constituency to which it relates is in England and Wales, or number of persons entitled to vote as an elector at a parliamentary Northern Ireland. election in the constituency (“the effective number”). (4) The petition shall be presented by delivering it to the (10) “The relevant day” for the purposes of subsection (9) prescribed officer or otherwise dealing with it in the prescribed means, the day on which the registration officer publishes a manner; and the prescribed officer shall send a copy of it revised version of the electoral register under section 13 of the forthwith to the Speaker and to the relevant MP. Representation of the People Act 1983.”. (5) The election court shall be constituted as if it were This New Clause adds in the process for notices of intent to recall; constituted under section c123 (constitution of election court who is eligible to sign such a notice and how the petition officer is to and place of trial) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 determine whether it is effective, leading on then to a recall petition and sections 124 and 126 of that Act shall apply as if it were so notice being issued. constituted. 55 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 56

(6) “Prescribed” has the same meaning as in section 185 Amendment 9, in clause 9, page 6, line 27, leave out (Interpretation of Part III) of the Representation of the People from “constituency]” to end of subsection (4) and insert Act 1983.” “to be subject to a recall referendum. If the recall referendum New clause 7—The third recall condition; consideration leads to the loss of his/her seat this does not prevent the member by election court— standing in any consequent by-election.”. ‘(1) This section applies when a petition alleging conduct by an This amendment changes the wording in the recall petition to MP which constitutes misconduct in public office is considered reflect that if successful there will be a referendum and that if the by an election court under section (The third recall condition: recall referendum leads to the loss of the member’s seat, he or she method of petitioning an election court). may still stand for election in any consequent by-election. (2) The court may consider such conduct whether or not it is Amendment 10, in clause 10, page 7, line 9, leave out committed in England and Wales, and whether or not it is “Speaker’s notice is given” and insert “petition officer committed directly in carrying out the office of member of has determined that the notice of intent to recall is parliament. effective”. (3) The court must examine evidence adduced of misconduct, This amendment has the same effect as those for Clause 7. and any evidence produced in rebuttal by the MP. Amendment 11, page 7, line 22, leave out “Speaker’s (4) The court must consider whether, on the basis of such notice is given” and insert evidence, a person might properly be indicted for the common law offence of misconduct in public office. “petition officer has determined that the notice of intent to recall is effective”. (5) For the purposes of this section, gross dereliction of duty This amendment has the same effect as those for Clause 7. as an MP may be considered misconduct in public office. (6) If the court considers, on the basis of such evidence, that Amendment 35, in Schedule 2, page 21, line 10, leave the allegation of misconduct is— out “Speaker‘s notice is given in relation to a recall petition” and insert (a) not supported by the evidence; or “petition officer determines that a notice of intent to recall is (b) trivial or vexatious in nature; or effective”. (c) brought for party political purposes; This amendment has the same intent and achieves the same effect then the court must dismiss the petition. as for the amendments to Clause 7. (7) If the decision of the court is that the alleged behaviour is Amendment 12, in clause 13, page 8, line 37, leave out such as to satisfy subsection (4), then it must notify the Speaker “Speaker’s notice is given” and insert that it has so determined. “petition officer has determined that the notice of intent to recall (8) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting any is effective”. provision of the Bill of Rights 1689.” This amendment has the same effect as those for Clause 7 and Amendments 42 and 43 and NC6 and NC7 form part of a group of reflects the fact that the recall conditions and the role of the amendments and new clauses which provides a route for recall for Speaker are removed. members of the public independent of any parliamentary Amendment 13, page 8, line 44, leave out “Speaker’s committee, or criminal convictions. It allows for an alternative and notice was given” and insert “petition officer determined additional trigger for the recall process which provides direct access that the notice of intent to recall was effective”. whereby one hundred constituents may petition an Electoral Court in the case of improper behaviour or gross dereliction of duty on This amendment has the same effect as those for Clause 7 and the part of an MP, and seeks to avoid any conflict with the reflects the fact that the recall conditions and the role of the provisions of the Bill of Rights. Speaker are removed. Amendment 34, in Schedule 1, page 17, line 6, leave Amendment 14, page 9, line 3, leave out subsections out from “effectually” to end of paragraph 1 and insert (4) and (5). “carrying out the functions under this Act and Regulations made This amendment has the same effect as those for Clause 7 and under it in relation to notices of intent to recall, recall petitions reflects the fact that the recall conditions and the role of the and recall referendums” Speaker are removed. This amendment extends the general duty on the petition officer to Amendment 15, page 9, line 9, leave out “receiving a reflect the addition of the notice of intent to recall and referendum notice under subsection (5)” and insert “becoming aware stages to the Bill. that this section applies”. Amendment 6, in clause 7, page 5, line 22, leave out This amendment has the same effect as those for Clause 7 and “receives a Speaker’s notice” and insert reflects the fact that the recall conditions and the role of the Speaker are removed. “has determined that a notice of intent to recall is effective”. Amendment 16, in clause 13, page 9, line 16, leave out This amendment makes clear that the date upon which the petition “receiving a notice under subsection (5)” and insert officer determines that a notice of intent to recall is effective is the “becoming aware that this section applies”. relevant starting date for the recall petition process. This amendment has the same effect as those for Clause 7 and Amendment 7, page 5, line 36, leave out “received the reflects the fact that the recall conditions and the role of the Speaker’s notice” and insert Speaker are removed. “determined that the notice of intent to recall is effective”. Amendment 17, page 9, line 22, leave out subsection This amendment makes clear that the date upon which the petition (8). officer determines that a notice of intent to recall is effective is the This amendment has the same effect as those for Clause 7 and relevant starting date for the recall petition process. reflects the fact that the recall conditions and the role of the Amendment 8, in clause 8, page 6, line 13, leave out Speaker are removed. subsection (2). Amendment 18, in clause 14, page 9, line 31, leave out This amendment removes the power to make regulations requiring subsection (2)(b). information on the recall condition to be included in the notice of This amendment reflects that the Speaker’s role in the recall petition to be sent to registered electors. petition process has been removed. 57 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 58

Amendment 20, page 9, line 44, leave out “Speaker’s Amendment 25, page 11, line 18, after “petition”, notice is given” and insert insert “or recall referendum.”. “the petition officer determined that the notice of intent to recall This amendment extends the controls on loans to accredited was effective”. campaigners to be extended to recall referendums. This amendment has the same effect as those for Clause 7. Amendment 26, page 11, line 22, leave out “has the Amendment 21, page 10, line 24, leave out subsection (8). same meaning” and insert “and ‘recall referendum’ have the same meanings.”. This amendment is consequential on the amendment removing subsection (2) of this Clause. This amendment extends the controls on loans to accredited campaigners to be extended to recall referendums. Amendment 22, in clause 15, page 10, line 27, leave out from “officer” to end of Clause and insert— Amendment 27, in clause 18, page 11, line 27, leave out “recall petition” and insert “determines that the recall petition was successful the officer “notice of intent to recall, recall petition or recall referendum.”. shall issue a notice of recall referendum This amendment extends the regulation making powers to cover (2) Where a notice of recall referendum has been issued, the notices of intent to recall including the promoter’s declaration of petition officer shall hold a referendum on the question set out in compliance and recall referendums. subsection (3), within a period that is no less than 21 days and no more than 27 days after the date of the notice. Amendment 28, page 11, line 28, leave out “recall (3) The questions that is to appear on the ballot papers in a petition” and insert “notice of intent to recall, recall recall referendum is— petition or recall referendum.”. “Should [name of member of Parliament] be recalled This amendment extends the regulation making powers to cover from the House of Commons?”. notices of intent to recall including the promoter’s declaration of compliance and recall referendums. (4) A person is entitled to vote in a recall referendum under this Act if that person would be entitled to vote on that day as an Amendment 30, page 11, line 31, at end insert— elector at a parliamentary election in the constituency. (0) make provision extending section 13 to apply to the early termination of a recall referendum process.”. (5) A person who is entitled to vote in a recall referendum may do so in person, by post or by proxy. This amendment extends the regulation making powers to cover notices of intent to recall and recall referendums. (6) This subsection applies where more votes are cast in a recall referendum in relation to a member of Parliament in Amendment 29, page 11, line 38, at end insert favour of the question asked in subsection (3) than against. “(including extending section 12 to cover the signing of notices (7) Where subsection (6) applies, the result of the referendum of intent to recall, any offence under [section Notice of intent to is that the member’s seat becomes vacant and a by-election will recall] and voting in recall referendums)” be held. This amendment extends the regulation making powers to cover (8) The petition officer must— notices of intent to recall including the promoter’s declaration of compliance and recall referendums. (a) determine the result of the recall referendum as soon as reasonably practicable after the date on which the Amendment 37, in Schedule 6, page 57, line 35, leave referendum took place, out from “after” to end of line 36 and insert (b) immediately notify the member and the Speaker of the “a petition officer has determined that a notice of intent to recall result of the referendum, and is effective”. (c) as soon as reasonably practicable, publish the result of This amendment has the same effect as those for Clause 7. the referendum.”. Amendment 32, in clause 22, page 14, line 30, at end Where a recall petition has been successful, this amendment sets insert— down the requirement for a recall referendum: it provides the “‘notice of intent to recall’” means a notice calling, in wording for the recall referendum ballot and if passed for the terms determined member’s seat to become vacant. This thereby triggers a under section (Notice of intent to recall) for a recall by-election. petition to be issued;”. Amendment 23, in clause 16, page 10, line 40, after This amendment adds in necessary definitions to reflect the other “amend”, insert— amendments to the Bill. “(a) Schedules 3 to 5 to apply to expenditure and donations Amendment 33, page 14, line 43, at end insert— in relation to notices of intent to recall and recall “‘recall referendum’ means a referendum asking, in referendums and reporting requirements in connection terms determined under section (Notice of intent with the financial control of notices of intent to recall to recall) whether the seat of a member should be and recall referendums.”. vacated in accordance with this Act;”. This amendment extends the regulation making power in this This amendment adds in necessary definitions to reflect the other Clause to enable the controls on expenses, donations and reporting amendments to the Bill. requirements set out in the Schedules to be extended to notices of intent to recall and recall referendums. Clause stand part. Amendment 36, in Schedule 3, page 24, line 5, leave out “Speaker‘s notice is given” and insert “petition Zac Goldsmith: I rise to speak to the amendments in officer determines that a notice of intent to recall is my name and those of 80 or so colleagues across the effective”. House, and in so doing make a plea to this House. Today, hon. Members will be able to decide if we want a This amendment has the same intent and achieves the same effect genuine voter-led system of recall with tight caps on as for the amendments to Clause 7. spending and a high enough threshold to prevent vexatious Amendment 24, in clause 17, page 11, line 11, after abuse; or if we want a bogus system of recall that is “petition”, insert “or recall referendum.”. possible only in the narrowest of circumstances and This amendment extends the controls on loans to accredited with prior permission of this House. Given that under campaigners to be extended to recall referendums. the Deputy Prime Minister’s current proposals just six 59 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 60

[Zac Goldsmith] Zac Goldsmith: That is exactly the point: the barriers are high enough to prevent vexatious abuse. However, I Members in the past quarter of a century would have recognise that concerns were expressed across the House qualified even for the possibility of recall—and four of during last Tuesday’s debate, and they fall broadly into them resigned in any case—we can at least agree that four categories. Three are largely technical and can the Bill in its current form is a waste of time, but it is easily be accommodated. The first relates to cost controls, worse than that. If enacted, it will confirm the suspicion the second to thresholds, and the third to the frequency of many voters that politicians pretend to listen but with which recall petitions can happen. I will deal with then deceive. We are only having this debate because at those quickly before coming to the more profound a certain point before the last election the mainstream concern that was raised— parties felt obliged to do something to address the increasingly strained relationship between people and Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab): power, so it would surely be a madness for us to legislate Will the hon. Gentleman give way? today on the assumption that our voters cannot be trusted. Zac Goldsmith: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will deal with these points first. We had a good debate on Tuesday of last week and I listened closely to the concerns raised around the On the concern about costs, the Deputy Leader of amendments that I and colleagues are sponsoring and, the House, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and for context, I want briefly to recap the effect of the Wallington (Tom Brake), said that under the amendment amendments. The process is effectively threefold. First, there would be no cost controls at all on the first part of if 5% of the local electorate sign a notice of intent to the recall process, the notice of intent. As he wrapped recall, within a one-month time frame the returning up Tuesday’s debate, he said that it would effectively be officer would announce a formal recall petition. Secondly, a free-for-all. I know he has read the amendments, so I it would take 20% of voters—14,000 or so—to sign the am surprised he said that, because there are controls recall petition in person within an eight-week period to that mirror exactly those for the petition stage in the trigger a recall referendum. The referendum would be a Government’s own Bill. Irrespective of that, it is perfectly simple yes or no—“Do you want your MP to be recalled; possible to build in further controls—strict limits on yes or no?” If more than 50% say yes, there would then expenditure and so on—and I have indicated to the be a by-election. Opposition and colleagues in my own party that if they table amendments on Report to bolster those cost controls, Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): The only concern I would be very happy to support them. colleagues with longer memories may have about my The second issue, which relates to thresholds, is also hon. Friend’s amendment, which I think is very powerful, technical. The principal concern involves the notice of is the risk of vexatious claims being made for party intent to recall, the fear being that it would be too easy political or other purposes. Is my hon. Friend convinced to secure 3,500 signatures—or 5%—in one month and that that could not arise with his amendment? that there would therefore be too many recall petitions. Zac Goldsmith: I thank my hon. Friend for his Mr Russell Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give intervention, and I will focus above all on the point he way? raises in the few minutes I will take up during this debate. The process is deliberately very difficult. There Zac Goldsmith: I will in just a moment. The notice of are several hurdles—I have just identified three of them— intent to recall is the least formal part of this process and I think my hon. Friend will agree they are very and exists only for one reason: to ensure that where a high. recall petition happens, there is a genuine demand for it, and not only among a small handful of local cranks. Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con): On step two and the The threshold is about right, but I have said to the 20% threshold, my hon. Friend said last week and will Opposition and party colleagues that if they seek to probably say again today that this needs to be done in raise it on Report, I would be happy to support that in person at the town hall or suchlike. What guarantee is the interests of achieving meaningful reform. there that the easy, “click-send” mentality that so many The third concern relates to the fear that Members of us see now in this job will not one day be extended to would face endless recall attempts, amounting almost this process? As a result, vexatious recalls will be much to a form of harassment, an issue raised several times in easier to pursue. last week’s debate. I see no need for a limit, as the experience of recall around the world shows that its use Zac Goldsmith: Such a move could happen only by is extremely rare and that it is used only in extreme permission of this House. We will struggle today to get circumstances. In 100 years of recall in the United any kind of meaningful reform, and the concern that States, where there are virtually no financial controls or this House will casually extend the remit of recall to controls on broadcasters and so on, it has happened include digital democracy is a hope too far for those only 20 times. There have been 40 recall referendums— who believe in direct democracy. Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab): Will the Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con): hon. Gentleman give way? My hon. Friend will remember that when this proposal—an online process rather than a physical one—was put to Zac Goldsmith: I will in a moment, when I have 40,000 people online, including online campaigners such finished dealing with this point. However, as I have said as members of 38 Degrees, the vast majority, well over to the Opposition and to my colleagues, for the sake of 90%, said, “No, this is a bad idea”. The process should achieving meaningful reform I would not oppose sensible be serious, physical and involve a proper hurdle. proposals to establish some reasonable limit. 61 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 62

Mr Russell Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? relates to the fear that elected representatives could be unfairly hounded from office—kicked out because of Zac Goldsmith: When I have finished this point. how they voted on issues such as gay marriage, the Obviously, it would make no sense to limit the number badger cull or HS2. It is the idea that the mere existence of times a notice of intent to recall can be started of recall would make Members nervous about expressing because technically, that would enable one lonely crank themselves on controversial issues, and that rich and in a constituency to exhaust those options for the rest of powerful vested interests could chase from Parliament the constituents, with just a single signature. Logically, those who dare to stand up against them. if there is to be a limit in this process, it would have to apply to the number of recall petitions themselves. I encourage the Government, the Opposition or any Member Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) to bring forward a proposal on Report to set a limit on rose— what would be possible. Zac Goldsmith: Those fears, however sincere, are Mr Kevan Jones: I also heard the figure of 40 being misguided, and I want to explain why before I take any mentioned on the radio and in last week’s debate, but in further interventions. the United States in 2011, there were 150 recall elections at various levels, with at least 30 in Michigan. Although First, on a technical level, the numbers make such a the hon. Gentleman gives the impression that the method thing virtually impossible. To reiterate, under my proposals, is not used in the United States, it is used extensively at no Member could be recalled unless 50% plus one of his all levels of government, and mainly by the Republican or her constituents voted for that recall, so there would right to destabilise local Democrats. be no question of a minority hounding an MP out of office—unlike with the Government’s plans, under which, Zac Goldsmith: I am afraid that I did not catch the bizarrely, 10% of constituents could throw out their data that the hon. Gentleman set out, so would he mind MP, even if the other 90% absolutely adored them—and repeating those figures? no Member could even face a full recall vote unless 20% of electors, or roughly 14,000 people, made the Mr Jones: In 2011, there were 150 recall elections in effort to go in person to a town hall, within a limited the United States—this is not just at state level, but at a time frame, to sign a petition asking for one. We heard local level—and there were 30 in Michigan alone. The last week from hon. Members who had received 500 e-mails hon. Gentleman makes a point about endless recalls about badger culls and 400 e-mails about equal marriage, but, in practice, people in the United States who are but those figures of 400 and 500 would be nowhere near subject to recall do not contest the process, but resign. enough to topple an MP, to trigger a referendum, or even to get to the point of having a recall petition. Zac Goldsmith: The hon. Gentleman’s point relates Those numbers are pitifully small compared with those to attempts at recall, not recall elections themselves. required to clear the hurdles even to instigate the process Mr Jones indicated dissent. that I am describing. What is more, those letters that MPs receive are often online and in template form; they Zac Goldsmith: Yes, it does. In California, which has can be sent at the mere click of a mouse. We are talking had more recalls than any other US state, there has been about a completely different scenario. one successful recall of a governor, when Gray Davis It is no coincidence that many of the Members who was replaced by Governor Schwarzenegger. From have unfairly faced the greatest difficulty during this 2011 to 2013, nine of the 120 elected representatives Parliament, the very people whom the critics of recall faced recall, but not one of those processes was successful. might imagine to be the most vulnerable to attack, have Mr Russell Brown rose— put their names to my amendments, and they were the first to do so—my hon. Friends the Members for Zac Goldsmith: I will move on from that point, but I Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Ribble Valley am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity (Mr Evans) and my right hon. Friends the Members for to speak. Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and for Meriden I have set out the technical points that were raised on (Mrs Spelman). They did so because they know that the Second Reading, and I hope that hon. Members realise existence of recall is the best possible way of challenging that it would be relatively easy to deal with them on a noisy minority of critics either to put up or shut up. Report. They know that when a recall petition fails to materialise, a Member will be able to turn to his or her tormentors Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con): and say, “The silent majority does not share your view.” When there is an unpopular policy in a constituency—HS2, for example—and the MP cannot speak out in public, Sir James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con): for instance because they are a Front Bencher, would I entirely share my hon. Friend’s view that many of the not my hon. Friend’s proposals make such a Member letters we receive are identical, having been prompted very vulnerable? Can he assure me that his proposals by one source, and that they represent a tiny minority. could not be used to blackmail Members of Parliament Could not that be said of the e-mails and letters we have who might not be able to speak out as they would wish? received in support of his amendments? Zac Goldsmith: My right hon. Friend’s point goes to the heart of our debate because it deals with a much Zac Goldsmith: Even if my right hon. Friend had more profound concern than those three technical points received not a single letter in support of recall, that with which I have attempted to deal. This is the line in would not change my own commitment to trying to the sand on which we will need to decide today. It secure this very minor but nevertheless meaningful reform. 63 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 64

[Zac Goldsmith] Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): I think my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine The key point that I plead with Members to consider McKinnell) might choose to address herself to this is that people can be trusted. They are not a mob of debate in a different way. fools who are easily driven to the polling booths by I have not signed the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, manipulative media barons; they are our friends, our although I happen to agree with him. I want to raise neighbours and our family. They can tell the difference two issues that he still has not addressed sufficiently. between the rare examples of misbehaviour or betrayal First, 5% is a very small number. He suggested that he so egregious that justice demands recall and the much might accept a higher number on Report. Would he be more frequent instances of legitimate disagreements on prepared to accept 10% or 15%? Secondly, some of us policy or of trivial, minor foolishness. Although he think that the financial provisions are not tough enough spoke against recall very well last week, I think that the in the Bill or in law. Will he support further amendments right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank at a later stage? Dobson) made that point himself, albeit inadvertently, when he said that his predecessor could easily have been 5.15 pm recalled because of her views on abortion—she represented Zac Goldsmith: The notice of intent to recall is the a largely Catholic seat—but she won seven elections, most informal part of the process—its only purpose is and in each one her majority grew. Voters are like us: to demonstrate that it is not a waste of time. I do not they can respect and support someone without having mind if the level is 5%, 10% or 15%; the House has to to agree on every single issue. Very few people in this decide on that and will have an opportunity to do so on world are motivated purely by one concern over one Report, I hope, if these amendments are accepted. I will issue. not vote for the lower thresholds because I have made a Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman commitment to the House. On the question of whether referred to what my right hon. Friend the Member for it is 10% or 15%, I would be interested to see what the Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) said last House thinks. week. Will he also consider the example of my constituency, On financial controls, very strict limits should be as I was one of only two Labour MPs who voted not to applied on the notice of intent to recall. I cannot see ban hunting? That was an issue that could have prompted that the process would merit more than a few hundred calls for a recall, but it would not have happened, pounds being spent on it, and I certainly do not think it because people accept that individual MPs have very should be in the thousands. As I said, the regulations strong views on individual issues. relating to financial controls in my amendments exactly mirror the controls in the Government’s Bill. I think Zac Goldsmith: The hon. Lady makes a brilliant they can be improved. I encourage the hon. Gentleman point. She represents an urban seat where there are not to have that argument with the Government, and I will many fox hunts, as far as I am aware, and the fact that back him up in doing so. she faced so little comeback from her constituents reflects the high esteem in which they hold her and it is testament Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab): How to how rarely recall would be used in reality. is the hon. Gentleman going to get the whole thing about the costs involved in doing this—£500, or whatever I want to answer the point made in an earlier intervention else—into an area that can be organised in such a way about conscience voting. There are times, I believe, that it would be seen by all? when a betrayal might be so extreme as to merit a recall. I know that I was elected in Richmond Park and north Zac Goldsmith: That is an interesting question. The Kingston largely because my constituents felt that I structure of this place is such that those discussions would be able to bat for them on the issue of Heathrow could be quite difficult. The formal point at which we expansion and put up a serious fight. I made promises would be able to have them would be on Report. If my at the time that I would disown my own party and, if amendments are accepted, it would be for anyone in this necessary, trigger a by-election to combat that enormous House to table further amendments. If they want to do threat to my constituents. If I had U-turned straight so with me and the Committee that I was part of, we after the election, having made those solemn vows to can do that. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to get in my constituents, and helped to facilitate a third runway, touch with me—I am happy for him to do that—because should I have been able to do so with impunity? I do not this process should as open as possible. I will not dig my think so. Perhaps that is the line in the sand in the heels in on these matters, because they are not issues of debate we are having today. principle but technical issues that can and should be addressed. Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con): I fully support my hon. Friend’s amendment. He is doing a very sound job Mr Kevan Jones: They are not technical issues. of trying to persuade people by saying how rare and infrequent these events may be and reassure them that Zac Goldsmith: They absolutely are technical issues. there will not be opportunities for vexatious recalls, but is not the true power behind the amendment the fact Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): My hon. Friend alluded that it is the only one that trusts the British people to to the example of his undertakings on Heathrow. Members make those decisions, rather than people in this House of the party that joined the coalition made undertakings defending their own? at the election about student finance, and then, in the interests of good government, swallowed hard, and will Zac Goldsmith: My hon. Friend will not be surprised almost certainly take the pain at the next election for to hear that I absolutely agree with his comments. the breach of their promise to the electorate. However, [Interruption.] they made a decision in the interests of the sound 65 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 66 administration of the country, and they should be Zac Goldsmith: My point about the 5% in Tuesday’s commended for that. They should be free to make those debate was that every constituency, without exception, decisions, as we all should, when sound administration will have one or two or a handful of people who will requires it. The problem with the amendment is that it want to initiate the process. My point was that the works against decent government, which, overall, our 5% notice of intent to recall might well bubble away in constituents should expect of us. constituencies up and down the country, but in a world where recall existed that is something to which we Zac Goldsmith: I would give two responses. First, if would become accustomed. If a petition began to reach we existed in a world where recall was possible, I suspect the 3,500 mark in a one-month period, I would say that that the promises made before the last election would that would be a fairly good indication that the recall not have been made. In the context of a recall regime, petition was merited in that constituency, for whatever we would have to be much more careful about the reason it had been initiated. promises we made because we would know that we could be held to account after making and then breaking Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con): In signing this them. amendment I have signalled my support in principle of Secondly, if circumstances require a broken promise—an it, but I think it would be strengthened if the petition abandonment of a manifesto pledge—in a system of officer had before him a definition of what should recall, or, frankly, without it, it is incumbent on Members represent justification for recall. He could then judge, at to go back to their constituents and explain why that the very start, whether it was a case of hounding out or promise had to be broken. In the case of the Liberal something less serious. Democrats, I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) has spent a lot Zac Goldsmith: I would argue that that is exactly of time speaking to and engaging with students of all what the coalition Government have attempted to do, ages to explain why the U-turn was necessary. I can but they have failed. It is very hard to define wrongdoing absolutely guarantee that whether or not he wins at the by a Member of Parliament, because our jobs mean next election, he would not have been recalled on the something different from constituency to constituency. back of what was a profoundly broken promise. My Any number of Committees, my own included, have hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) attempted to define wrongdoing by MPs, but it is almost must have confidence and faith in his voters. Voters can impossible to do so. For example, an amendment tabled see through these things. by the Liberal Democrats, with support from Members of other parties, suggests that an MP who engages in Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): A lot of us “gross dereliction of duty” would qualify for their new are worried about my hon. Friend’s amendment because trigger for recall, but how is it possible to define the we do not want recall procedures to be started on the duty of MPs when there is no job description? Would basis of the votes we cast here or of what we say. Has he that include an MP who never turns up to Parliament to seen the amendment in my name and that in the name vote? I suspect not, because if it did we would have a of my right hon. Friend the Member for South East problem with Sinn Fein and open a whole can of worms Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), which make it absolutely that many Members would not want to open at this clear that no recall procedure should be initiated on the stage. basis of how we vote or speak in this House? Would my Those amendments are a complete waste of time hon. Friend be prepared to accept those amendments? because it is impossible to define wrongdoing. The only people who are qualified to define whether an MP is Zac Goldsmith: I have seen my hon. Friend’s amendment behaving well or badly and living up to expectations or and I understand why he and my right hon. Friend the not are the people that MP represents. That is why the Member for South East Cambridgeshire have tabled protection needs to be in the threshold, not in the their amendments, both of which say more or less the definition. same thing. However, as I said a few moments ago, this is the line in the sand for me. I think we can trust our Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con): I voters. When the Division bell goes, Members will have compliment my hon. Friend on showing enormous to decide whether they believe we should trust people sincerity in moving his amendment. Will he explain with this power. As Members make their decision, I exactly how this petition of 5% would work? I am so old hope they will properly consider whether the arguments that I remember studying the Chartists’ petitions, and they have heard against recall—vested interests, an over- their third petition in 1848—I was not there—was somewhat mighty press and a fallible public—are in fact arguments discredited by the fact that “Victoria Regina” had signed against democracy itself. it, which was thought rather unlikely. “Mickey Mouse” often comes up in petitions. Of course, it would have to Mr Russell Brown: On Second Reading, the hon. be a name and address in the constituency, but that is Gentleman said: quite difficult to check, so could my hon. Friend please “I suspect that every politician, at one point or another, would explain how that would work? find themselves the subject of the 5% recall petition stage.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 793.] Zac Goldsmith: My right hon. Friend is right that That is how the process would begin, but the hon. that is difficult. Before I answer his question directly, let Gentleman needs to differentiate between misconduct me repeat that this is the least formal part of the process and wrongdoing and policy. As the hon. Member for and it is not covered by normal election rules. Yes, Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has said, a process policing this process would be harder, but the promoter—a based on political party policy should not be allowed to person has to deliver the 5% of names to the returning begin. officer—would be bound by the criminal law in the 67 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 68

[Zac Goldsmith] That works out at about 40p per person. If that is the price people have to pay for decent representation, I same way that other elections are governed in this suspect that most people would regard it as a price country. If the promoter deliberately included signatures worth paying. of people who were not eligible to vote, double signatures, signatures of people who were too young or who were Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): from other constituencies, or made-up names, that would The hon. Gentleman knows that on certain matters I be a very serious criminal offence. Could it ever happen? admire his commitment. My problem is that the Bill has Of course it could. Does election fraud happen in been advertised, particularly those using the 38 Degrees constituencies? Of course it does. It is not possible to website, as a serious amendment to get rid of bad have a perfect system, but the protection is in the fact apples. The 38 Degrees document in fact says that that the promoter would be bound by the criminal law. people can have a recall for no reason: they do not have to state a reason. Will he clarify the confusion in the Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): I public mind? He plays fast and loose with the statement congratulate my hon. Friend on tabling his amendments. that anyone who opposes this is against democracy. Will The momentum for recall came from manifesto he be quite clear that he does not support the idea of commitments focused on serious wrongdoing. Is it not having a purposeless petition, or one in which the possible to uphold the principle of letting the people purpose is not stated, against a Member? We now have decide, but to place parameters on serious wrongdoing—we a situation in which the will of the Scottish people is will not define it ourselves, because it is not possible to quite clearly to stay in the Union, but we are being be do so—to ensure that the people can decide what it threatened—thank goodness, we can take it up at the is? Can we ensure that the focus of our principles and general election—and under recall, his rule could be intentions is on that? used to try to overturn the will of the people and to be anti-democratic. Zac Goldsmith: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. In fact, an open recall system of the sort I Zac Goldsmith: This is a point of difference. I do not propose gives local constituents the power to decide believe that voters will attempt to recall—and they what constitutes serious wrongdoing. For my part, I certainly would not succeed in recalling—anyone who is believe that it would not be abused by voters. They not a bad apple. I do not believe that voters will remove would be able to tell the difference between a disagreement people over a policy difference. I made that point earlier. on a simple policy issue or a frivolous mistake in The question comes down to whether or not the hon. someone’s private life and issues that are so serious they Gentleman trusts the voters. It is as simple as that. I merit recall. cannot guarantee that frivolous attempts will not be made—of course I cannot—any more than I can guarantee Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): I am what will happen in his seat or anyone else’s at the next honoured to be allowed to intervene on this brilliant election. Democracy is unpredictable, but ultimately I speech by someone who actually trusts the voters. It have confidence that voters will make the right decision. seems to me that if all we are concerned about is wrongdoing, that is covered by the Standing Orders of Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab): the House, under which we are entitled to expel Members The hon. Gentleman has talked about many technical who do something of which the House disapproves. points, so may I offer him a technical point? Would it That makes the Bill as framed—without my hon. Friend’s not add to the level of democracy if the names and excellent amendments—unnecessary. We should do the addresses of everybody among the 5% or 20% were whole thing properly, or not at all. made available to the public, just as a marked register is made available after an election, so that everybody Zac Goldsmith: Again, my hon. Friend will not be could see who they were? surprised to know that I absolutely agree. My concern is that many of the arguments against recall imply that, to 5.30 pm paraphrase Lenin’s infamous dictum, democracy is so precious that it must be rationed. Zac Goldsmith: That is an interesting debate to have. Instinctively, I would be reluctant to go down that road, Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab): I am extremely because I do not think that people should have to grateful to the hon. Gentleman not just for the Lenin declare their vote. I do not believe that any amendments quote, but for his extraordinary generosity in giving to that effect have been tabled to the Bill or to my way. Will he just elucidate one absolutely straightforward amendments, but we could have that debate on Report. point, not a great philosophical issue? The London I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board. borough of Ealing faces £87 million of cuts. Who would pay for this process? Will it be yet another impost Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) rose— on a struggling local government? Michael Connarty rose— Zac Goldsmith: I believe that, under the Government’s Bill, the cost of the petition and the by-election would Zac Goldsmith: I have allowed too many interventions be borne centrally. My right hon. Friends on the Front and I want to come to an end to allow other people to Bench are welcome to intervene if I am wrong. The take part. same would be true in the alternative that I am proposing. Regardless of their views on recall, I hope that Members I have checked with Electoral Reform Services, which will at least acknowledge that something has gone wrong routinely conducts referendums, and I have been told with our politics. The question is what we should do to that the cost would be £35,000 for a recall referendum. fix it. Surely the Government Bill—this desperate pretence 69 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 70 at reform—is not the answer. Its every clause betrays a only two occasions over the past two decades, and that lack of confidence in voters, with or without the feeble no one found guilty during the cash for questions Government amendments—the last-minute tweaks of scandal received a sufficiently long suspension to meet the last couple of days. If we as a Parliament are so the Government’s proposed threshold. untrusting of our fellow citizens that we refuse to allow Labour believes that that is not acceptable and therefore them even the remotest opportunity to hold us to proposes the halving of the threshold figures. We are account, other than twice a decade, we will merely clear, however, that we should not lower the threshold confirm their low opinion of us. We should think the to such a level as would merely allow vexatious and best of our voters, demonstrate our confidence in mischievous claims. In addition, we must recognise that their moderation and good sense, and enact a true recall parliamentary dissent is part of our democratic heritage, Bill. and a Member who is standing up sincerely for their beliefs should not find their right to protest compromised Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab): by unnecessary recall petitions. None of those who were It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, suspended for protesting in the Chamber—unless they Mr Amess. were serial repeat offenders—would be caught by our I will speak first about the clause as it stands. I will amendment. Therefore, we believe that it strikes the then explain the purposes of the Opposition amendments right balance of strengthening the right to recall without and set out our view of the amendments tabled by the jeopardising parliamentary democracy. hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and others. Finally, I will briefly address the amendments John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): May tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome I be absolutely clear on this? Is my hon. Friend saying (Mr Heath) and others. Later in the debate, when the that there could be a cumulative number of days and arguments have been set out more fully, my hon. number of suspensions—I take this as a matter of Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen personal interest? Twigg) will make another contribution to sum up our position. Thomas Docherty: I am most grateful for my hon. I want to place on the record Labour’s support for Friend’s intervention. We are clear—I look to the Minister the principle of recall when an elected representative’s to clarify this when he responds—that it is a case of conduct falls well below the standards that Parliament suspension, not a running total, although one hopes and their constituents expect. That is why our manifesto that we will not see my hon. Friend too near to the in 2010 promised to introduce recall legislation and why Dispatch Box and the mace in the near future. we supported giving the Bill a Second Reading last Tuesday. We made it clear during that debate that we Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab): Earlier, would table amendments to strengthen the Bill. Before I my hon. Friend touched on a point that the hon. turn to the amendments that we have tabled, as promised, Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) never I will talk briefly about the Standards Committee, which really cleared up because he did not distinguish between recommends the suspensions from the House that could malpractice, bad practice and criminal activities, and trigger a recall. political activities. That is the weakness in his The Opposition agree with those inside and outside amendment—it does not distinguish between the two Parliament who believe that we must reform the Standards and we could end up with a recall because of someone’s Committee in order to build public trust. Although political opinion in the Chamber or outside. Does my amendments on the Standards Committee were not hon. Friend agree? within the scope of the Bill, I want to place on the record the Labour party’s support for a radical overhaul Thomas Docherty: I am grateful for that intervention, of the Committee. That would include the removal of and my hon. Friend spoke very well last week when he the Government’s majority and an increase in the role pointed out, and Labour Members agree, that we are and authority of its lay members. We propose that at representatives, not delegates, in this place. That is an least half the Committee should be lay members and important principle, particularly for those of us in the that the Chair of the Committee should not be a Labour movement. He is entirely right—I will come Member of Parliament. I note that the right hon. Member to this later—that the basis for recall should be for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), who was the wrongdoing and someone’s conduct, not the causes that Leader of the House for two years, has backed changes they support. to the Standards Committee. If his comments are indicative of a wider view on the coalition Benches, let us move Richard Fuller: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that swiftly to build cross-party support for reform of the he wanted to stop the public having this choice to avoid Standards Committee. vexatious or mischievous recall petitions. Does he believe We tabled four of the amendments that are being that Members would be subject to that because the considered today and I will set out how each of them public are not smart enough to understand what is would strengthen the Bill. Amendment 45 seeks to mischievous or vexatious, or that they would be too amend the threshold for recall that relates to suspensions open to manipulation as the result of a recall petition? from the House of Commons. The Government propose that MPs will have to be suspended for more than four Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman was slightly sitting weeks or 28 calendar days for the threshold to be misinformed about what I said. We believe that the reached for recall petitions. According to the excellent people of Dunfermline and West Fife are very smart: research services of the House of Commons Library, it they sent me to the House of Commons and voted no appears that that threshold would have been met on overwhelmingly a few short weeks ago. 71 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 72

Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) believe that a flagrant misuse of public funds by an (PC): Further to the intervention from the hon. Member elected representative is unacceptable and that extraordinary for Bedford (Richard Fuller), is the problem with the measures are required. We hope that MPs in other Labour party’s position that it would essentially put parties agree with that principle. power of recall in the hands of a Westminster Committee, whereas other amendments would put power in the Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con): I have listened hands of the people? carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s points. Everything he has said points to a proper judicial process rather than Thomas Docherty: I appreciate that this might be a an internal one. Would his supporters prefer that? novel concept for some Members of the House, but Labour is sticking to what its manifesto said. We said in Thomas Docherty: That is why we have set out that our manifesto that we would support recall for those there should be three routes to recall. Hon. Members who have committed wrongdoing. That is what we are will know that the occasions on which recall should be proposing tonight, and that is what our amendments required will be very few and far between, but the hon. seek to strengthen. Gentleman is right that we are proposing three methods of recall. For the benefit of the Committee, it is worth Several hon. Members rose— capturing them again. Thomas Docherty: I will make a little progress if I may. Amendment 47 relates to MPs who have fiddled Mr David Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? their expenses. Thomas Docherty: Let me finish dealing with the Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) rose— earlier intervention. The first criterion is that a Member of Parliament is Thomas Docherty: I will give way one last time. convicted and given a custodial sentence. The second is that they have received a suspension from the House for Chris Heaton-Harris: Surely amendment 45 puts even a specific period—amendment 47 tackles that. The more pressure on the Committee that decides on third is that a Member is found to have fiddled their suspensions because it knows that the threshold has expenses and receives a conviction. Those are three been reduced from what the Government propose—28 days, clear examples of wrongdoing. None of them is about or whatever—to 10 days. I would much rather leave it to how a Member votes in the House, their views or other the people, but in my opinion we would be putting such behaviours. That is the difference between the pressure on the Committee that would make the judgments, Opposition and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire and any punishment would therefore fall the wrong (Bill Wiggin). side—or the right side for the hon. Gentleman—of those 10 days. Mr Davis: The fact that the hon. Gentleman proposes Thomas Docherty: I have a great deal of respect for three different methods does not solve the flaw in the the hon. Gentleman, but I struggle with his logic. Does central method, which is that a Committee of the he trust the independent Standards Committee? As I House will make a ruling. If the ruling is, in effect, a said a few moments ago, it would be genuinely independent career capital punishment for a Member of Parliament, and would have a majority of lay members. A Member the decision should be judicial. I am sorry, but no lay of Parliament would not chair it. If he does not believe Committee and no Committee of the House is equipped that an independent Committee can judge fairly and to make such a decision. It must be judicial. rationally the bad conduct of his colleagues, I am not sure what his faith in the system would be. Thomas Docherty: I am genuinely not sure I follow the logic of the right hon. Gentleman’s position. Several hon. Members rose— Mr Davis: I am not surprised about that. Thomas Docherty: I am going to make progress—many hon. Members wish to speak. Thomas Docherty: To be fair, the Prime Minister As I have said, amendment 47 relates specifically to could not follow the right hon. Gentleman’s logic when MPs who have fiddled their expenses. It is worth noting he was a member of the shadow Cabinet. that since the introduction of the Independent To reiterate the Opposition’s position, recall must be Parliamentary Standards Authority not one MP has based on a measure of wrongdoing. It cannot happen been caught trying to abuse the new system. The cases just because a group of constituents, or a well funded that have come to light in this Parliament have related vested interest group, seek to remove a Member of to the last vestiges of the old, discredited system. Parliament because they disagree with them. Nevertheless, it is crucial that Parliament listens to the concerns of the public to ensure that if a Member of Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend is trying to grasp a Parliament is found to have abused the new system a complicated matter. The Bill of Rights makes it absolutely suitable course of action is available. That is why the clear that no proceeding in Parliament should be questioned amendment would ensure that, when the IPSA compliance or impeached by any court of law or any other place. officer finds that an MP has committed a serious breach Unless we change the Bill of Rights, it seems difficult to of the rules, and the MP is convicted of making a false allow a court or another body outside Parliament to expenses claim, they will be subject to recall. judge what a Member may or may not have done in the Some colleagues might question why the Opposition proceeding in Parliament. Does my hon. Friend’s proposed have singled out expenses for qualifying for recall, even Standards Committee, which he wants to make more when a non-custodial sentence is given. Labour Members independent, meet that same rule? 73 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 74

Thomas Docherty: With your indulgence, Mr Amess, If that MP is found guilty of a breach of the councillors’ perhaps I may spend 30 seconds on the issue of rules, such as interfering inappropriately with a constituent, parliamentary privilege. In part, the Standards Committee and suspended for a certain period, it would be bizarre is outside the scope of the Bill, because it would remove if they could not be recalled by their constituents as the exclusive cognisance of the Committee, and it would an MP. be open to judicial review, either by the complainant or Our amendments are designed to strengthen the Bill. the Member of Parliament if either party was unhappy. They seek to strike the right balance between protecting As the learned and knowledgeable Clerk sitting close to parliamentary protest and ensuring that MPs who commit you, Mr Amess, will agree, there are already some wrongdoing are held to account. They would widen the exceptions to the issue of privilege, such as the Register scope for recall and lower the threshold to ensure that of Members’ Financial Interests. The register is not genuine wrongdoing does not go unpunished. I hope covered by parliamentary privilege, so if a Member that they will command support on both sides of the makes a declaration, the courts are able to use that as House. evidence in criminal proceedings, as I think happened a few years ago—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, I want to turn briefly to the amendments in the name West Derby will probably be able to tell me which case it of other hon. Members, and to turn first to the amendments was. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris in the name of the hon. Member for Richmond Park. Bryant) is right: we have to be careful that we do not He has campaigned on this issue since he was first end up creating endless litigation that would result in elected in 2010 and held consistently to his views. We far greater frustration for our constituents and the are concerned, however, that he has not been able parliamentary process. properly to define wrongdoing, despite being pressed to do so not just in Committee today and on Second Reading last week, but on many previous occasions. 5.45 pm The dangers associated with not having a requirement Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman will recall to demonstrate any wrongdoing are clear: a well-funded that the Procedure Committee discussed the question of campaign group or vested interest would be able to lay members of the Standards Committee voting and remove a Member of Parliament simply because it concluded that if they did have votes, they would be disagreed with his or her views. outside privilege. Therefore, there is a real difficulty in having voting lay members on any Committee of Zac Goldsmith: The hon. Gentleman is right that I Parliament. have not been able to define wrongdoing, but neither has anyone in the Committee. All he has been able to do Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman will recall is create thresholds that demonstrate certain elements that the Committee was not unanimous on that matter. of wrongdoing, and one falls into terrible difficulties That is why we are offering to work on a cross-party when one tries to do that. For example, reducing suspension basis—I see that the Deputy Leader of the House is in from 21 to 10 days would have meant that the right hon. his place—away from the Bill, on a reformed Standards Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) would not have fallen Committee that will genuinely command the confidence foul of the provisions, despite the fact that many people of the public and the House and also meet our think he probably should have, whereas the hon. Member constitutional requirements. for Bradford West (George Galloway) would have fallen Amendment 46 relates to the issue of whether only foul of the provisions even though his crime was not offences committed after this Bill comes into effect apologising for impugning the honour of certain Members should be subject to recall. That appears to be the case of this House. We may not like it, but that is hardly a as the Bill stands. As an example of the problems that recall offence. The trouble with the mechanism that the would create, let us take the case again of Bill Walker, hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas the disgraced former SNP MSP.It was only after he was Docherty) is introducing is that it will have a perverse elected that it came to light that he had, over a 30-year outcome, not a democratic outcome. period, repeatedly assaulted four members of his family. He was subsequently tried, convicted and sentenced to Thomas Docherty: We on the Opposition Benches a year in prison. However, as the Bill stands, had disagree. We believe that there is a clear measure. If Mr Walker been an MP, he would not have been covered someone is convicted of a criminal offence and sent to by the recall provisions. Of course, the recall provision prison for a non-expenses-related offence, that is clear should not apply if the electorate are aware of a previous wrongdoing. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says conviction when electing a Member of Parliament, but about struggling to define wrongdoing, but he seeks it surely cannot be right that if an historic offence simply to blow off the doors for recall. comes to light and a conviction is then forthcoming, voters cannot remove and replace that convicted politician. Zac Goldsmith: I am struggling to define wrongdoing, We hope that the Minister will recognise that important but I challenge anyone here to define wrongdoing in a oversight in the Bill and work with us to tidy it up way that would genuinely capture wrongdoing by MPs. through this amendment or on Report. It is simply not possible. My argument is that it is not Amendment 49 deals with offences committed by necessary because we have a jury out there: they are MPs who also hold other elected offices. Although the called constituents and we can rely on them. My concern Bill is so narrowly drawn that we cannot extend its is that even with a relatively straightforward threshold provisions to other elected posts, we think that it is such as jail, there could be perverse outcomes. For at least sensible to extend it to cases in which MPs example, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline hold a dual mandate. Let us use as an example a Lucas)—I apologise for bringing her into this—could hypothetical case in which an MP is also a councillor. have been sent to jail for two or three days for her role in 75 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 76

[Zac Goldsmith] relating to freedom of expression, which we will come on to later? Rather than defining wrongdoing, we could a protest against fracking. I have no doubt that she make exceptions to what is clearly not wrongdoing. would have been welcomed as a hero by her constituents for doing so, but under the hon. Gentleman’s mechanism Thomas Docherty: My hon. Friend the Member for and under the Government’s mechanism just 10% of Liverpool, West Derby will touch on that point and on her constituents could have thrown her out of Parliament. points made by the right hon. Member for Somerton Yes, she may have been able to claw back in through a and Frome and others. by-election, but I suggest that a situation where 10% of the people can throw her out of Parliament and make Crispin Blunt rose— her lose her job on the back of something most of her constituents would appreciate, is another example of a Thomas Docherty: I want to make some progress. I perverse outcome. have been on my feet for a significant period and perhaps longer than some of my colleagues would wish. Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman Without a clear definition or threshold to demonstrate for his second speech so early on. I do not disagree that wrongdoing, the amendments, however well intentioned, there is a particular issue—I, too, apologise to the hon. open the door to abuse. Furthermore, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion—in relation to Member for Richmond Park has admitted, he has provided parliamentary protest. I am not saying for a second that no spending limits for his system, further raising the this relates to the hon. Lady, but the Opposition have spectre, as we have heard, of US-style recall petitions. been struggling with the question of when knocking off Those on the Labour Front Bench are clear. We support a policeman’s helmet is an act of civil disobedience and giving the public the right to recall their MP on the when it is an act of assault. That is why we are not grounds of misconduct. We do not support recall on the getting in the way in trying to subdivide an act. As the grounds of how an MP votes. That would have a hon. Gentleman says, the decision if for any Member’s chilling effect on freedom of speech and limit the ability constituents to make. of MPs to represent their constituents effectively. We As the impact assessment states, even under the urge MPs to reject the amendments, because they do Government’s system, which as we have already stated not provide robust safeguards. However, we recognise is relatively modest, the cost to the taxpayer of both the the diversity of opinion across the House and hope that recall petition and the by-election would be £300,000. I our debate this afternoon might help us to find a way am slightly perplexed about where the Electoral Reform forward. Society got its figure of £35,000. A sum of £300,000 is to most of us real money and there is a real danger that, Zac Goldsmith: I would like the opportunity to put without any control over the grounds of recall, not only the record straight. I did not say that we had no would the system be open to abuse by well-funded financial controls attached to the amendments. On the special interest groups that dislike how an MP has voted contrary, we want all the controls in the petition stage in the House, but the cost to the taxpayer would be to apply throughout the various stages in the Bill, so astronomical. that the regulations provided by Government would be mirrored on the notice of intent to recall, on the recall Michael Connarty: I asked the hon. Member for petition and on the referendum itself. As I have also Richmond Park about definition, but he did not come said, it is up to the hon. Gentleman and other Members back to me. I notice that in new clause 1, which he has to come forward with other ideas for further tightening tabled, there is no need to define the purpose of a recall the regulations to prevent abuse. I am sure that would petition at all—a petition can be called for no reason. meet the approval of the whole House. He has tried to rescue himself by seconding new clause 2, which asks for a clear definition. The confusion is that Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, he is mixing up populist politics with good jurisdiction. but I say very gently that he is seeking to amend the It is clear he is playing to a crowd that is basically Government’s Bill and is then asking the Government following the 38 Degrees argument, which is that a to come up with suitable amendments to his amendments. recall can be called without stating any reason. Of That, I am afraid, is not how it works. Perhaps in a few course, that undermines the whole purpose of jurisdiction months’ time he will be sitting on the Opposition Front and having a recall Act. Bench—we do not know what Boris will do—but he is not on the Front Bench at the moment. It is not for Thomas Docherty: I am most grateful to my hon. other people to come up with amendments that tidy up Friend. The hon. Member for Richmond Park has been amendments tabled from the Back Benches. struggling for four years to come up with a workable definition. The reality is that a failure to do so does not Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) rose— give us a pass to proceed without a definition. We are deeply concerned that these provisions would be open Thomas Docherty: I will give way to the hon. Lady, to vexatious challenges. because I have taken her name in vain on more than one occasion. Sir James Paice: I am following what the hon. Gentleman is saying very carefully. He is right that nobody has Caroline Lucas: The hon. Gentleman did take my managed to define wrongdoing. Does he not accept, name in vain and for the record I am very glad to be however, that the two different amendments tabled by able to put him straight that I have never, ever knocked my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir a helmet off anybody, much less a policeman. With Edward Leigh) and I have in their own way sought not respect, I think the arguments he is making are spurious. to define wrongdoing but to exclude certain issues The amendments described by the hon. Member for 77 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 78

Richmond Park are already in the Bill. Amendment 23 wanted and what they put to the people. I hope, therefore, is also very helpful when it comes to regulating the that we can get away from this false dichotomy between amount of money we are talking about. Frankly, the a real recall Bill and a bogus recall Bill. This is not a idea that this is something cooked up by 38 Degrees is bogus recall Bill, but it is one that could be strengthened, such an insulting suggestion. The hon. Member for and that is exactly what we should be focusing on. Richmond Park and many more of us have been working I think we might need to look at the constitution of on this issue for many, many years. the Standards Committee. As a former member of the old Standards and Privileges Committee, I think there Thomas Docherty: I hope the hon. Lady will accept is scope for changing the membership of the Standards that I did not mean to imply that she had knocked off a Committee, although I would make one caveat about policeman’s helmet. On her main point, I must say that the voting rights of members. That point was covered in simply working on something for a long time does not a Green Paper on privilege that I produced as Minister in itself solve the problem. I have been working for but which I do not think anybody read, apart from— some time on trimming down but have not made enough possibly—the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West progress; that does not mean I should simply stop and Fife. Either way, it was obviously minority reading, say it has been accomplished. given that so many people since have commented from a position of sublime ignorance on the subject of privilege. 6pm Nevertheless, there are issues to consider and in principle I agree that we should reform the Committee. These are not robust amendments, but we recognise the diversity of views and will urge the Government to We should not kid ourselves, however, that any work with parties across the House to find a way Committee of the House will have the confidence of forward. In that spirit, I want to turn briefly to the many members of the public. That is why I want a amendments in the names, among others, of the hon. mechanism that provides the public with direct access Member for Somerton and Frome, my hon. Friend the to this process and which is not mediated by a custodial Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and my sentence or the decision of a Committee of the House. I right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), am sorry but there is no way such a Committee could be which have appeal because they enable a public trigger seen as anything other than an old boys’ club. I winced that is still based around wrongdoing. We want to listen slightly when I heard my constituency neighbour, the carefully to the arguments tonight. In order to function hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), properly, the proposals will need further refinement, who is not in his place, refer to the capacity of the but in principle we would be willing to consider the idea House to expel Members. This is not a gentlemen’s club. of an external body deciding whether the trigger level of Can we please get away from the Victorian idea that we misconduct had been reached, if we can make it work make the rules and deal with things? Our electorate has fairly, and we are willing to discuss the amendments in a right to be engaged in this process. more detail with the signatories. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby will say more about Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab): Does the hon. that later, but we hope that the Government will reflect Gentleman agree that the Standards Committee, whose upon this matter carefully. lay members are denied a vote by the House, does In conclusion, Labour believes that voters should nothing more than report to the Floor of the House? It have the power to recall their MP for wrongdoing, and is not a Committee that sits upstairs and comes to these we believe that our amendments would strengthen and decisions. The decision about whether somebody is improve the Bill, but we look forward to the debate and guilty of misconduct—I have spent three years trying to the Committee finding the best way forward. find out exactly what that means—would be taken on an amendable report on the Floor of the House. Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Dunfermline Mr Heath: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and for Richmond right, but that does not alter the fact that the public will Park (Zac Goldsmith). I want to speak principally to not believe that any mechanism mediated by MPs, the amendments in my name and those of other hon. either in Committee or on the Floor of the House, is Members on both sides of the House who have been not going to protect MPs. I do not think it a fair kind enough to add theirs—amendments 42, 43 and criticism, but that prejudice is now impossible to remove, 44 and new clauses 6 and 7—but first I want to welcome so let us accept it. the Bill, which delivers on a manifesto commitment I want to find a new way to give the public access to from at least three of the parties represented in the the recall process. As was clear from the exchanges House. The other parties must forgive me as I do not between the hon. Member for Richmond Park and the know whether it was in their manifestos. Labour spokesman, we are talking about behaviour that our constituents cannot accept, rather than views Caroline Lucas indicated assent. with which they disagree. As I think he knows, I have a lot of sympathy with much of what the hon. Member Mr Heath: The hon. Lady nods her head. for Richmond Park is trying to do, and I accept his I am pleased that our commitment is finally being point about 20% being a difficult level to achieve— honoured. In government, I was frustrated at the time it somebody would really have to incense their constituents— took to get something before the House, and I think it is but I do not accept that 5% would be difficult to achieve an open secret that I would have preferred it to have for a well-funded campaign or even a political opponent gone slightly further than the Bill before us, but nevertheless who has lost an election and wants an immediate rerun. it is exactly in line with what those parties said they He blithely says, “Of course, all Members would probably 79 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 80

[Mr Heath] we need to find a way of capturing those examples of misconduct that are not necessarily caught by the criminal have a petition process against them”, but that is not a law and might not attract the attention of the Standards satisfactory position for Members to be in. If someone Committee, or, even if they do, where the public do not wants to do radical things in the House and represents a accept that as a mechanism. socially conservative constituency, they will face problems of this kind. It does not take much to get 3,500 people Geraint Davies rose— to say they do not support gay marriage or some other Mr Heath: I will give way once more, then I will get to policy on which we have legislated. I want to concentrate, what I want to propose. therefore, on genuine misconduct. Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Sir Edward Leigh: It could be the other way round—a the constant threat of recall, particularly for those in social conservative could be attacked by more liberal marginal seats, might be intimidating and lead constituents—but I agree with everything the hon. parliamentarians to champion popularity over principle, Gentleman has said. I presume he is in favour of the which would corrupt the democracy in which we live? amendments from me and my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Mr Heath: I do think that is a recipe for “populism”—in Paice) providing that no process could be started based the worst sense of the word—and that it is open to abuse. on votes cast or speeches made here. Is he in favour of It is a naive view that it would not be abused by those what we are trying to do? with deep pockets and strongly held views. It would be, and I do not believe that is necessarily in the interests of Mr Heath: I am in favour of the principle, but I have parliamentary democracy as we understand it. my own amendments that would have the same effect. To return to misconduct, several Members have rightly said that it is difficult to define the misconduct that we Mr Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that are talking about, so I looked around for an objective the threat of recall would have an effect on MPs? In the test of whether somebody had behaved improperly. I United States, a lot of people who face a recall just found that in England there is such a test, which many resign. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Members will be familiar with. English and Welsh law Goldsmith) contended that the support of 50% plus has the common-law offence of misconduct in public one of voters would be required for a successful recall, office, which is often used against public officials—most but that is not the case; it would only require 50% plus commonly against police officers nowadays, but also one of those taking part in the referendum. against council officials or others in the public service, including occasionally civil servants. The offence is Mr Heath: The hon. Gentleman makes valid points. understood by the courts and has been in existence for a I want to turn to the mechanism I am suggesting. long time—since 1783: Rex v. Bembridge, if anyone wants to look up the start of the offence. Richard Fuller: My hon. Friend just said that the If it helps the Committee, I will give a simple definition. threshold of 3,500 voters or 5% was low, and used the Actually, nothing is simple in this area, because it is example of gay marriage as an issue on which a petition open to interpretation, but the legal definition—the could easily be secured. Will he explain to the Committee working definition for the moment—of the offence is how that would be so wrong for democracy? What where somebody would be so wrong for me, as the hon. Member for “wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an Bedford, to have to go back to my constituents under abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder without reasonable the threat of a potential recall because of something I excuse or justification”. had said in the House? I cannot understand what the To an extent, therefore, it is a catch-all offence to deal problem with that would be. with people who behave improperly. I felt that it might serve as an appropriate trigger for the public to have Mr Heath: The hon. Gentleman might take a different recourse to the system without having to go through the view, but my personal view is that the general election other mechanisms. process is where these things are decided, not on a single issue, but on the performance of the Member and the Zac Goldsmith: The right hon. Gentleman describes plurality of views that are expressed. To have a form of the offence as a catch-all, but the advice that I have Athenian democracy in this country, where we have had—I have sought advice on this—is that it is a catch- constant voting and constant re-election, does not seem virtually-nothing-at-all. The Crown Prosecution Service to—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas has issued guidance saying that it should apply Carswell) is burbling from a sedentary position, but I “only where…the facts are so serious that the court’s sentencing do not think his party had anything about recall in its powers would otherwise be inadequate”. last manifesto, so perhaps he needs a further recall now, The House of Commons Library says: because if he votes for a recall provision this evening, he “There are few prosecutions, suggesting that action is taken will be breaking his election pledge not to have one; I do only when misconduct is particularly gross”. not know. And the courts have said: Let us move on. I personally do not think that what “The threshold is a high one requiring conduct so far below the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) described acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public’s is in the interests of the sort of representative democracy trust in the office holder. A mistake, even a serious one, will not that we have always enjoyed in this country. However, I suffice”. do think—I feel this very strongly and have argued it Is the right hon. Gentleman really adding anything at passionately, both before the election and since—that all to the Bill? 81 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 82

Mr Heath: Yes, I think I am, for two reasons. First, I Court judges in England and Wales, two judges of the do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has just said, High Court of Northern Ireland or two judges of the because the offence is actually quite frequently used Court of Session in Scotland—the matter would be nowadays in the courts of England—we are talking assessed. about more than a dozen and towards 20 cases a year. That would put Members of Parliament in the same In fact, there was one only last week, when a senior position as other public servants, which is an important police officer was indicted for the offence. Secondly, the signal in itself. Notwithstanding the need for protection reason the offence is not used against Members of under the Bill of Rights, I do not see why we as Parliament at the moment is, of course, the potential Members of Parliament should not be in a different difficulties with the Bill of Rights—I need to move on position from other public servants in other respects. I to that, because that is one of the difficulties. have also drafted my amendments so as to automatically provide a filter for claims that are trivial, vexatious or 6.15 pm clearly simply party political in nature, rather than Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind): I am most grateful genuine claims of misconduct. to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. He What are the difficulties with my proposal? There are will of course know that the Bill as drafted extends to two really big drafting difficulties that I encountered in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but trying to put it together. I think I am reasonably adept his amendment extends only to England and Wales. at drafting parliamentary amendments, but I have to say that these were significant problems. One problem is Mr Heath indicated dissent. exactly the point that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) made. We are talking about Lady Hermon: Oh, so it extends throughout the whole English common law and there is not a directly comparable of the United Kingdom? It would be helpful if the hon. offence of any kind in Scotland. I looked in vain for a Gentleman could confirm that and give some examples. common law offence in Scotland, and the nearest I Mr Heath: I will, but if I may, I will come back to could find was breach of duty, which is not the same as that, because it is one of the major difficulties in the the common law offence in England. That is why there drafting. has to be a slightly, I would say, circumlocutory approach— perhaps that is not the right expression, but it is certainly Mr David Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? complex—in that the courts would be asked to adjudicate on the offence as though it were committed in England, Mr Heath: This will be the last time. I am trying to irrespective of where it was committed by the Member. get to the content of my amendments and I have not yet I accept that that is a difficulty, and I would like better succeeded. constitutional lawyers than I am to have a look and find a more elegant way of achieving the same objective. Mr Davis: This is meant to be helpful. In the several cases of misconduct in public office that I have had to Chris Bryant: It seems to me that there is another deal with, the charge has been used because, really, problem. The Crown Prosecution Service says clearly in there was nothing else that would catch the offence that its guidance on misconduct in public office: had been created by the public official. I am sympathetic “The suspect must not only be a ‘public officer’”— to the hon. Gentleman’s argument; the problem is that not as straightforward to define as it seems—but that there is very little in the way of proper precedent that tells us what the offence really means. It seems to me “the misconduct must also occur when acting in that capacity.” that that is a very bad basis for any law at all. When does an MP act in the capacity of an MP except when proceeding in Parliament, which is the one thing Mr Heath: It is difficult, and as the right hon. Gentleman that the hon. Gentleman wants to preclude? probably knows, the common law offence of misconduct in public office has been subject to scrutiny over recent Mr Heath: That is another precise difficulty in the years. Indeed, the Law Commission is studying it right drafting that I foresaw. If the hon. Gentleman looked at at this moment to see whether it could be put on to a my new clause—there are so many tabled in the name of statutory basis, which might provide a better definition. the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) Curiously enough, however, one of the attractions of that I cannot find it at the moment. [Interruption.] Yes, the offence for this purpose is its lack of definition, new clause 7, which states: because all I am trying to do is define the things that fall “The court may consider such conduct whether or not it is short of fraud, assault and battery or whatever, but that committed in England and Wales, and whether or not it is nevertheless clearly constitute improper behaviour in committed directly in carrying out the office of member of the conduct of a Member of Parliament. parliament.” What I am seeking to do is put the matter in the In other words, it deals with the Member of Parliament hands of the public, not MPs, so that there is a third irrespective of that hazy definition of what the terms of trigger in the process. I am trying to ensure an objective contract of MPs are. I accept that this is a difficulty, test, which is applied in two ways. First, misconduct in however, and I do not want to pretend anything other public office is a recognisable offence. Notwithstanding than that these are difficult issues. I hope the Committee what the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin will accept that this is a genuine attempt to find a Barron) said, it is one that the English courts understand—I solution to a very difficult problem. will come back to the problem with the other jurisdictions in a moment. Then, using a court that is understood—the John McDonnell: I commend the hon. Gentleman for election court, which is established under the Representation the struggle he has entered into. Let me provide him of the People Act 1983, which provides for two High with this practical example that occurred in my constituency 83 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 84

[John McDonnell] trigger of 100 people. That is not a large number to get together, raising the risk of continuous vexatious references. in the 1980s. Statements were made in this House that How would he overcome that problem? Secondly, when we considered to be of a racist nature, and we thought the outcome is a finding against the Member by the that they would have been prosecutable if they had been electoral court, is that a 10% test, as in the Government’s made outside this place. The individual, however, was proposals, or a full referendum test as suggested in the covered by parliamentary privilege, so was not brought proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond to book. He could only have been brought to book if Park (Zac Goldsmith)? there had been a right for the electorate to trigger a recall. Mr Heath: The first point is explicitly covered in new clause 7(6), which states: Mr Heath: That is the other major drafting difficulty. “If the court considers, on the basis of such evidence, that the I do not believe it would be right for me to put something allegation of misconduct is—(a) not supported by the evidence; before the Committee that accidentally repealed the Bill or (b) trivial or vexatious in nature; or (c) brought for party of Rights. I think the Bill of Rights provides important political purposes; then the court must dismiss the petition.” protection to Members. My proposals skate on the very That is the filter that prevents people from bringing edge of what counts as parliamentary privilege and vexatious charges time and time again. In extremis, of what does not. If the words had been uttered here, they course, the courts have the power to award costs if they would not be covered by the recall procedure, but I do feel that the same allegations are being brought forward not think they should be covered by that procedure again and again inappropriately. rather than by having a general election. That is my answer. On the second point about the threshold, my proposal What mechanism am I proposing? It is for 100 electors is that this should act as a further trigger to the from the constituency—[Interruption.] Government’s proposed mechanism. I am perfectly open, however, to discussion over whether a better and more The Temporary Chair (Mr David Amess): Order. appropriate threshold could be applied—both in terms of the original complaint and of the petition process. I Mr Heath: Thank you, Mr Amess. do not have strong opinions on this; I would like to talk I am proposing that 100 constituents—I deliberately to others and see if a consensus could be reached. kept the number low—can petition and make a claim of misconduct to an electoral court. That election court Kevin Barron: Would the decision of the election will then receive submissions relating to that claim or court be challengeable? In other words, if someone were petition and will receive any rebuttal from the Member found to have been involved in misconduct, could they of Parliament concerned. The court will be asked not to appeal against it, bringing an element of fairness into find guilt—that would provide the difficulty over the the procedure? clash with the Bill of Rights—but rather to certify that a prima facie case of misconduct has been made. The Mr Heath: My new clause is constructed in such a recall process would be triggered and it would then be way that there would not be an appeal process because for the electorate to decide. The jury would be, as was the court would not find on matters of guilt. It would said earlier, the electorate, and they would decide whether find only on the prima facie case in the same way as a they felt that the case was sufficiently proven and that magistrates court when it sends an offence for trial at a they would no longer be prepared to accept the individual higher forum. The electorate of the constituency are the as their Member of Parliament. The recall process court of appeal as well as the court of indictment, would then proceed. which seems to me appropriate. Is my new clause a perfectly formed amending provision? I do not believe it is because of the very serious drafting Zac Goldsmith: One of my points was half-addressed issues I have mentioned. If, however, the Committee’s earlier when the hon. Gentleman suggested that one of view is that misconduct should be captured, but thought his arguments against the notice of intent to recall, and speech should not be captured, my new clause which we are proposing, is that it would be awkward provides a potential mechanism for doing so. I hope to and inconvenient for MPs to have this bubbling away. hear from the two Front-Bench teams—to be fair to the However, the same arguments apply even more so to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas fact that only 100 people could get headlines in the local Docherty), I have partially heard it already—that they papers such as “Misconduct Charges brought upon are prepared to take the provisions away, talk to people MP”—even if the attempt was vexatious. There is more much more learned in the law than I could be as a room for that sort of mischief in the hon. Gentleman’s layman, try to provide a workable mechanism and then proposals than there are in my amendments. However, I lay the proposals before the House on Report. It is have a question for him about the “gross dereliction of essential to crack this nut of public access to the system. duty” in his new clause 7. How is it possible to find an That is what I want to achieve. I will support the Bill MP guilty of gross dereliction of duty when there is no irrespective of whether it contains a further trigger, but job description? Would this apply to an MP who refused I would very much like to see a mechanism that gives to come here to engage, debate and vote, as is the case the general public access to something that is currently with some parties? exclusively the preserve of this House if not through custodial sentencing. 6.30 pm Mr David Davis: Before he concludes, I would like the Mr Heath: If a Member of Parliament is elected and hon. Gentleman to address two issues that can be seen fails to carry out even the basic duties of a Member of in the central turmoil of the debate. The first is the Parliament, that Member of Parliament will, in my 85 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 86 subjective view, be guilty of a dereliction of duty. If the I shall oppose the amendments tabled by the hon. hon. Gentleman is referring to the number of Irish Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), and, constituencies represented by Members who have not although I know it is a dangerous thing to do, I shall taken their seats, I think, judging by the electoral history, support those tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough that a recall procedure would be unlikely to succeed in (Sir Edward Leigh). This must be the first and only time the long run, simply because people would elect those I have agreed with him about anything. I also want to Members again in the full knowledge that they would say something about the attempt by the hon. Member not take their seats. for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) to find a middle There was a famous Member of Parliament who way. decided to go and run a pub in Northern Ireland, and The Bill has been publicised as though it constituted did not attend the House of Commons for a very long a method of giving the electorate more of a say. It has time. I think that he was eventually persuaded to do so been suggested that anyone who speaks against it does by inducements offered by the then Government, who not trust the voters, and is somehow less of a politician were rather short of voting power at the time. It may be because he or she is afraid to stand for election. It is a that his constituents were perfectly content with that bit like being accused of being a witch. Well, each and position, but I think that it should at least have been every one of us has the guts to stand in every election, argued that he was failing in his duties to the electorate and to put our record before our voters. I have always and to the House. said that the one thing that distinguishes all those who stand for election to Parliament or a local council, or Thomas Docherty: I intervene merely to seek more for any other elected office, is that they have the courage information. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what of their convictions, the courage to stand before their the scale of the costs of the election court is likely to be, peers and ask for their trust. We should recognise that, and who he expects to meet them? because it is an important principle. I think that we may have given too much away to the unelected quango state and the like. We seem to have Mr Heath: So many Members have now referred to believed that if we fill organisations with independent me as a member of the Privy Council that I think I must people who have no political influence at all—I do not have received that status by acclamation. Will someone know whether they are born or develop—there will be please tell the Deputy Prime Minister that I obviously better decisions. I am a great big believer in the importance behave as though I were a member of that august club, of elected office. I think that it is something of which we although I am not? should be proud, and for which we should argue forcefully I assure the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West as parliamentarians and other elected office holders. Fife that the arrangements would be identical to those The Bill is strange in that it has united UKIP with the that currently govern election courts and election petitions. far left in the belief that it somehow represents a radical However, if someone were clearly initiating vexatious way forward. I do not think that it does. I think that it is proceedings, as is the case with the present election very dangerous. It does not empower voters, and it will courts, the court could, if it wished, award costs against undermine the democracy that we in this country take the petitioner, and might well do so if it felt that the for granted. process was being abused. The effects of the amendments tabled by the hon. I hope that I have answered all the questions that Member for Richmond Park would be very simple. The have been asked. I am sorry to have spoken at such great amendments remove the notion that someone must be length, Mr Amess, but I have done so mainly in response recalled on grounds of imprisonment or suspension, to interventions, which seems to be par for the course and allows the recall of Members for any reason. I this evening. Let me end by saying that I think that my think that this the first time I have ever heard a Member new clause is objective, and that it fulfils some of what present the argument that his proposals will never actually Members on both sides of the Committee want to be used. The hon. Gentleman said that it would be very achieve. I do not claim that the drafting is perfect and difficult, and that the barriers were very high. Why put cannot be improved, but I hope that the new clause will such a proposal on the statute book? Is it conning the begin a process of discussion which may reach a conclusion electorate to give them something that is so difficult to allowing for many of the things that the hon. Member achieve? Is the hon. Gentleman being dishonest with for Richmond Park and some of his supporters want to the people who he suggests will be empowered ? see achieved without opening the door to what some people equally adamantly do not want to see achieved, which is Members of Parliament being in constant fear Zac Goldsmith: Let me put the record straight. That of recall on the basis that they have voted to the is not what I said at all. I have never described the displeasure of someone very rich in their constituency. hurdle as impossible. I have said that it is a difficult hurdle—a deliberately difficult hurdle—which is high enough to prevent vexatious abuse, but low enough to Mr Kevan Jones: It is a pleasure to serve under your be surmounted. Amendment 1 is deliberately designed chairmanship, Mr Amess. in that way. It is nonsense to pretend that we are I support recall, as outlined in the Bill, for serious creating an impossible hurdle: I never said anything of misdemeanours. Those of us who were in the House at the sort. the time of the expenses scandal knew that things had to change, and, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend Mr Jones: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what he the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas said a moment ago. I did take notes. He said that it Docherty), the proposal on which we are being called to would be very difficult, and that the barriers would be vote today was in our manifesto. very high. During our debate on Tuesday, he said: 87 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 88

[Mr Kevan Jones] further pressures on me other than the marginality of my seat in that regard, as I might have been facing the “I know…Members worry that recall might somehow turn us possibility of recall by a vociferous minority of UKIPians into delegates and no longer representatives…but that is not or others who might have asked why I was talking about realistic. Voters care about a wide range of issues”.—[Official what they might assume to be terrorists—as opposed to Report, 21 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 796.] innocent constituents. If I had come under such pressure, The hon. Gentleman was suggesting that the process I hope I would still have acted according to principle would be difficult for some reason, but it will not be rather than popularity, but it is intrinsic in what is said difficult. He and those who are backing him are implying in respect of the proposals of the hon. Member for that people will not be “picked off” because of the way Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) that this corrupts in which they vote, which is complete nonsense. those who want to stand for principle over popularity. In a speech that he made the other day, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Mr Jones: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Dobson) gave the very good example of his predecessor Lena Jeger, who had argued strongly for abortion reform Chris Bryant: I just wonder whether we might bear in although her constituency was largely Catholic. Given mind Sidney Silverman and David Steel, who both the thresholds in the Bill, I think that it would have been courageously advanced causes that were considered to easy for her to be recalled. Let me give another example. be very unpopular at the time. They both represented I do not think that the hon. Member for Richmond marginal seats, and I would argue that they kept their Park was here when she was in the House, but there was seats because they were prepared to say uncomfortable a very courageous Labour Member of Parliament called things. Ann Cryer, who represented Keighley. In the face of a great many personal threats and a great deal of local Mr Jones: I have no doubt that what my hon. Friend hostility, she argued against forced marriages and says is correct, but I will explain in a minute why they highlighted the issue of birth defects in the Asian would not have kept their seats if there had been recall, community. She was also one of the first people to talk because a small and vociferous minority could have about issues that have now gained popularity—trafficking removed them. and the abuse of white girls in Keighley. She was very unpopular in the constituency. Caroline Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point? Is the hon. Gentleman trying to tell me that somehow the Asian community in that constituency, or at least Mr Jones: No, as I want to make some progress first. part of it, could not have put Ann Cryer under pressure [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Richmond Park by means of recall? I do not think that that would have says “Absurd” from a sedentary position. He has had been the case. She would have come under huge pressure. enough of a say, talking, I have to say, in some cases She received death threats on occasion as a result of complete rubbish. He now has to sit there and listen some of the things that she said, and many of the things to me. that she said were proved to be correct. Courageous people such as Ann Cryer should be free to speak out In the debate on 21 October the hon. Gentleman, in although large sections of their constituencies consider trying to demonstrate that somehow his Bill would what they are saying to be wrong, or disagree with never be used, said: them. I think, knowing Ann, that had this measure “I know that other hon. Members worry that recall might existed, she would have acted in the same way, but she somehow turn us into delegates and no longer representatives…but would have come under a great deal of pressure to that is not realistic. Voters care about a wide range of issues, and temper her views. it is rare for recall to be motivated only by one issue.” I said from a sedentary position, “Gun control.” He Mr David Davis: I do not remember Lena Jeger, but I then said, think I am right in saying that in each of her successive “There are no examples of that.”—[Official Report, 21 October elections her majority increased despite her stance on 2014; Vol. 586, c. 796.] abortion. I believe that the same was true of Ann Cryer, Well, I will turn to an example in a minute. whom I remember well—and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that she was courageous. Caroline Lucas: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but the frustration many of us in the Mr Jones: I will come on to that in a minute, because Chamber are feeling is that he says on the one hand that we have to look at the process of what is before us. a vociferous minority can remove an MP via recall, There is this idea that somehow a Member of Parliament whereas it is a four stage process that precisely requires is not going to be affected by recall, despite the pressure a majority in order to remove someone, so that is clearly they are going to come under, and that they will keep not the case. speaking out. I do not think that is the case. We only have to look to the examples in the United States to Mr Jones: I am not going to answer that point now, realise that. but I will answer it in a minute, and the hon. Lady is wrong in saying that the majority of the electorate in a Geraint Davies: My hon. Friend will know that I was constituency have to vote for this. formerly the MP for the marginal seat of Croydon Central and that I lost it. At one point I stood up to Caroline Lucas: Of the people who vote. defend the rights of my constituent Feroz Abbasi in Guantanamo Bay, saying he should face a proper trial Mr Jones: Exactly; it is the people who vote, but I will and have proper treatment. There might have been come on to that in a moment. 89 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 90

Mr Jim Cunningham: The hon. Member for Richmond way in which they can conduct recall elections. If I had Park (Zac Goldsmith) said earlier that the threshold that amount of cash, I do not think I would be bothered would be so high it would be very difficult for vexatious even if I lost it. claims to be made. Why does he not separate that in the Bill? Why does he not drop that—completely separate Caroline Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? it—if he does not intend that? Mr Jones: I am going to answer the hon. Lady’s point Mr Jones: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Like if she is patient. a lot of other things the hon. Gentleman says, he has On the hon. Lady’s point about the electorate, the not actually thought about that in practice. The problem hon. Member for Richmond Park said it is necessary to I have with the word “vexatious” is that somebody such have 51% of the electorate. No, it is not. In Colorado as Ann Cryer might come under such a recall Bill, given the recall election had a turnout of 36%, and under what she was arguing for, and it could be argued that what is being proposed by the hon. Gentleman and his the people arguing against her were not being vexatious supporters it is only necessary to have 51% of the but were arguing against a clear, important role that she turnout. A small number of people might turn out, and was performing. a huge swathe of people in a constituency who might have strong views on other issues but not the issue in 6.45 pm question might not be mobilised and might not vote. So to the idea that somehow this would be democratic, I It is said that somehow the use of this recall would be say there could be a situation where there was a 60%, almost unique. The hon. Gentleman used examples 65% or 70% turnout at a general election, and then a from the United States, saying there had only been much lower turnout for a recall election—as low as 40 such occasions. He is completely wrong. If we look 10% if police and crime commissioner elections are at state level in the United States, in 2011 there were at anything to go by—could determine the future of that least 150 recalls. Of these, 75 officials were recalled and Member of Parliament. It would take a very strong nine officials resigned under recall. In the state of individual then to stand up before the electorate after Michigan alone there were 30 recalls. So we have two the damage done in that process, because we all know things. First, there is the pressure of recall on individuals what would happen with that individual. who then resign before they get to that process, which The idea that somehow large numbers of people would happen under this proposal—I am not suggesting would give power to the mass of people is therefore some people would not be tenacious, but some might complete nonsense. In the United States this gives power fall by the wayside before that. The hon. Member for to large numbers of small groups of well-organised Richmond Park also says the electorate look at issues individuals. People should google the Koch brothers rather than just one issue. In the United States, we only and the American Legislative Exchange Council—which need look at the example in Colorado in 2013 where is actually the libertarian wing of the Tea party and is two state Senators—John Morse and Angela Giron—both where this proposal is coming from. I think this is very voted for tighter gun control. It was certainly not tight dangerous for progressive politics both in the United gun control as we would understand it in this country. States and this country. They asked for two things: more ID checks on the purchase of firearms, and legislation to limit people to Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op): Is my hon. buying 15 rounds of ammunition. They were both Friend aware that I received an e-mail a few days ago recalled. The right-wing National Rifle Association along from the British equivalent of the Tea party: the front with the Koch brothers and their Tea party fanatics organisation of the right wing of the Conservative piled in something over half a million pounds for that party, the TaxPayers Alliance, which is supporting these recall election. The Senators lost it and they were then proposals? replaced by two very right-wing Republican state Senators. I say to the idea that somehow this will be free from Mr Jones: That does not surprise me. the influence of big money that it will not be. The hon. The hon. Member for Richmond Park has not even Gentleman has not even thought about limits in terms thought about finance and spending limits for recall, or of what could be spent on the elections. If we look at about the work that would be done to undermine what happens in the United States, we see that in some someone in the lead-up to it. states as soon as someone loses an election, money goes in to destabilise certain state legislators. Before recall, Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): My hon. Friend began big money is spent, so being able to control that would by saying that he supports recall as set out in the be very difficult. Government’s Bill. However, surely it provides that, on the basis of either of the triggers, a petition of simply Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab): The question of 10% of the electorate can take a Member out completely, what these limits are is important. What does recall regardless of what the other 90% say. How can we give mean to a person of limited means when they are up any weight to his argument about democracy, given that against big money? he supports 10% being able to oust a Member straight away? Mr Jones: Exactly, and I made that point last week. If I had the £250 million or £300 million the hon. Member Mr Jones: I must say that I do have problems with for Richmond Park has, I would not have to worry. that system, but I also know that under it, at least we [Interruption.] Well, I am sorry, but it is a matter of are talking about someone who has been found guilty fact. [Interruption.] Of family history, as my hon. Friend of some wrongdoing. If the amendment were accepted, the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) says. If as in the United States, a small number of well financed someone has that amount of money, it influences the people would be able to go after certain individuals. 91 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 92

[Mr Kevan Jones] We must get back to recognising that standing for elected office is a noble thing that people should strive The hon. Member for Richmond Park referred to a for, not just in this place but in councils and elsewhere. I figure of £35,000 for a recall election. The recent recall respect anyone who has the guts to stand for election. election in Wisconsin cost $35 million. The idea that Many commentators criticise what MPs do, but if they several recall election referendums around the country were asked if they would stand for election and be could be done on the cheap is fanciful, to say the least. subject to such scrutiny not only at election time but throughout the life of a Parliament, not many would Thomas Docherty: Has my hon. Friend read the say yes. We must recognise the value of standing for Government’s impact assessment, which says that, even elected office. under their proposals, the likely cost of recall and by-election is £300,000-plus? Does he agree that it is Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con): I am extremely grateful slightly ironic that, under the amendment of the hon. to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and the whole Member for Richmond Park, the TaxPayers Alliance is House will appreciate the compliment he has just paid proposing a free-for-all that could quickly rack up to Members. However, if he is afraid that this extension millions of pounds of spending? of democracy will result in the supplanting of socialist Members with libertarian ones, why does he not just Mr Jones: That is the flaw in the argument, and it is propose spending limits? clear that the proposer of the amendment has not even Mr Jones: The hon. Gentleman is talking complete thought about that cost element. nonsense. The idea that the Bill is an extension of There is a cost involved in democracy, and I support democracy to the average elector is complete rubbish. It paying that cost. However, we have general elections, at will limit what we in this House can do, and put control which people can indicate whom they want to represent of the agenda in the hands of well financed individuals. them. I have no truck with the argument that the hon. Yes, I trust my electors: that is why I keep on standing Member for Richmond Park and his supporters are for election and do monthly constituency surgeries to advancing that somehow the system is broken. Time listen to what they have to say. That is why I attend and again, the phrase “Westminster establishment” is public meetings and speak to my electors when I go to used. He may well be a member of an establishment; I get the Sunday newspaper, for example. We need to am not, and nor are most Members of this House. dispel the nonsensical idea that Members of Parliament do not speak to their electorate; these days, very few Mr David Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? would even get elected if they took that approach.

Mr Jones: In a minute. Most Members of Parliament Geraint Davies: My hon. Friend may be interested to do their best for their constituencies. The situation now know that in my patch, Swansea, there was a bid by a is very different from the days when Members never big financial organisation to have motorbike riding on lived in their constituencies or went anywhere near the beach. It was heralded in the press as a very popular them. In the light of developments such as electronic idea, but I spoke out against it, saying that it would do media, MPs are more accountable to their constituents enormous environmental damage, encourage hooliganism than ever. I want to knock on the head the idea that we and so on. Let us say that the financial forces behind come to Parliament, sit on these green Benches and that proposition coalesced behind the popular view—those never give a thought to the opinions of our constituents, who wanted a motorbike riding free-for-all—and I was and do not talk to them daily. threatened with recall. That would be another example of how this proposal would intimidate democracy and those of us who stand up for principle over popularity. Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): My hon. Friend said that in his view, there is no such thing as a Westminster Mr Jones rose— establishment. Does he agree with me that there is also no such thing as a Westminster class? Those of us who Zac Goldsmith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? live in the real world know what class politics is really all about. Mr Jones: Not yet. There is a convention in this House that we have to answer an intervention before Mr Jones: I agree. I would not consider myself to be allowing another one. in the same class as the hon. Member for Richmond Park, for example. The fact is—[Interruption.] Iamnot Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): If the hon. antagonising my constituents, as the hon. Member for Gentleman turned up a bit more, he would know that. Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) says from a sedentary position. Most Members of Parliament get Mr Jones: My hon. Friend makes a good point from elected to try to do the best for their constituencies, and a sedentary position. it is insulting to say they do not. I may disagree politically There are occasions—I gave the example earlier of with other Members of this House—of all shades—but Ann Cryer—when Members take positions that are at the majority are in politics not only to do what they can odds with certain sections of their constituents, but that to help their constituents, but to make the world a is the beauty of Parliament. It is about being able to better place as they see it. The same was true of my time argue not just on our constituents’ behalf, but for the in local government; I think I met only one or two progressive changes and legislation that, if we had rogues—who were perhaps in politics for different recall, I doubt would have been delivered. That is why I reasons—when I was a councillor. It is a bit patronising find it very odd that people who are supposedly on the for people to dismiss that point. left support this type of recall— 93 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 94

Kevin Brennan: A rich man’s charter. he aware that the Scottish National party ran a series of front organisations during the referendum in Scotland Mr Jones: As my hon. Friend says, it is a rich man’s so that they could each spend to the £1.5 million limit? charter to pick off anyone who has views at odds with Does he agree that one of the great concerns about the their own. proposal of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) is that it could give rise to co-ordinated Zac Goldsmith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving attack after attack from organisation after organisation? way. He said earlier that the Colorado state legislators were recalled over gun issues, arguing that the Koch Mr Jones: We all know that organisations get around brothers had put millions of dollars into that campaign. election limits—we need only to look at the last election In fact, the spending by those calling for the recall was in Richmond Park and the activities of its MP—so it exceeded fourteenfold by those arguing against it. Yes, would be difficult to control the amount being spent. In big money is involved, but I think the hon. Gentleman the United States, seats are targeted well in advance so has got the maths wrong. That aside, our proposals that once an election is lost, money goes in to undermine would have very strong limits on funding and, as I and an individual. colleagues have said, we would welcome even further Implementing the power to recall for any reason controls, so his arguments are just nonsense. whatsoever would be not an advancement of democracy in this country; it would be a retrograde step. It is Mr Jones: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both suggested that the power would be rarely used, but ways. He cannot argue for his proposal and then say, people would work out clear ways to use it and how to following my raising the issue the other day, that if finance the process. I therefore ask the Committee to someone else wants to bring in spending limits, they oppose the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for can. He should have thought this through. He knows Richmond Park. exactly what he is doing: this proposal will give powerful The hon. Gentleman’s proposals would not give the individuals with deep pockets a big influence over how ordinary elector any more power, but would benefit our democracy is conducted. I am sorry, but I do not those who want to drive through a political agenda. agree with that. It is wrong. The supporters of this There are those on the left of my party who think that proposal are saying, “Are you afraid of your electors? the process would somehow empower individuals and Are you going to give ordinary electors a say?” That is represent a radical statement, but that is not the case. not what the proposal will do. It will give well organised, Under the proposals, progressive legislation would be well financed individuals a lot of say over who sits on killed in the House, as views that people passionately these green Benches. believed in and courageously set out—such views may later become the norm in the nation—would be killed Kevin Brennan: And how they behave. not following proper debates and votes in the House, but because someone could finance a recall election that Mr Jones: I do not think that money should determine would either put such an individual under pressure to that or, as my hon. Friend says, how Members behave. be quiet, or actually force them out. People should be elected on a broad range of issues, and it is for the electorate to determine subsequently whether The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark): It they are re-elected. is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Docherty) has given you some timekeeping assistance Park (Zac Goldsmith) says that he is proposing strong through his suggestions, and I shall try not to fall foul financial controls, but his amendment 23 would provide of that. only that Ministers should have the power to apply controls on spending to the notice of intent and recall As the group includes many amendments and new referendum processes. He does not say what the controls clauses, I shall say something about the overall choice or the financial limits might be. Indeed, the limit during facing the Committee that is embodied by the measures, the recall petition period for which the Bill provides is before giving the Government’s assessment of each, £10,000 per accredited campaigner, but there is no limit which I hope will help the Committee. If there is time, on the number of accredited campaigners. the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), will make a speech at the end of the debate, so colleagues 7pm who speak after me will have an opportunity to hear a reaction to their remarks. Mr Jones: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman raises that point because in the United States, to get As I explained on Second Reading, the Bill has had a round any spending limits, a plethora of organisations difficult history. Some people are against it—and indeed will be set up to force a recall, meaning that they can against anything that introduces a system for recalling carry out vigorous and targeted campaigning. We should MPs. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee remember that such recall would not be like the general concluded of the draft Bill: election, with 650 contests being fought, because resources “We do not believe that there is a gap in the House’s disciplinary could be concentrated on one single constituency, meaning procedures which needs to be filled by the introduction of recall.” that big money would influence the outcome. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) made a similar point. Others, Thomas Docherty: My hon. Friend is being most including my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond generous by giving way again as I know that he wants to Park (Zac Goldsmith), believe that we should adopt get towards the end of his speech. On spending limits, is an entirely different model of recall: one that is not 95 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 96

[Greg Clark] a constituent-led trigger for recall, albeit one based on misconduct. That important suggestion has much to triggered by proven misconduct, but can instead be commend it, so I will reflect carefully on the amendment. initiated by a petition of the electorate for any reason at Similarly, the Opposition have suggested making the any time. trigger more sensitive and sending the clear message That disagreement could lead one to suppose that the that the criminal abuse of the parliamentary expenses Government’s Bill is just another contribution to a system should trigger recall, and I appreciated the spirit debate without consensus, and that it has no greater or in which the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West lesser significance than any other approach, but that Fife spoke to those proposals. While my colleagues and would not be right. The Bill is fundamentally different I will vote to maintain the balance that the Bill as from the approach of no recall, or that of recall for any drafted strikes, and for a faithful adherence to the reason at any time, although I hesitate to tease my hon. manifesto on which we stood, it might well be possible Friend by referring to that as the Martini recall—any for us to support changes on Report. That demeanour time, any place, anywhere. The Bill as drafted implements is an appropriate response to today’s proceedings and completely and faithfully the promises that the main last week’s Second Reading debate, given that no parties made in their manifestos at the general election. overwhelming case has been made at this stage for The Conservative manifesto promised that sending the Bill back to the drawing board and starting “a Conservative government will introduce a power of ‘recall’ to again. allow electors to kick out MPs, a power that will be triggered by proven serious wrongdoing.” Wayne David: Would the Minister like to go a little The Labour manifesto said: further and indicate whether he is prepared to have “MPs who are found responsible for financial misconduct will genuine cross-party talks to see whether it is possible to be subject to a right of recall if Parliament itself has failed to act establish a consensus? against them.” The Lib Dem manifesto said: Greg Clark: Well, I think that we are having them “We would introduce a recall system so that constituents could now in Committee; the parties are approaching a serious force a by-election for any MP found responsible for serious subject and seeking to strengthen the Bill. Of course, wrongdoing.” those talks can also take place between now and further The coalition agreement reflected those positions. occasions when the Bill is debated. The hon. Gentleman As drafted, the Bill would cause a recall petition to be makes a reasonable point. triggered if an MP was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of up to a year or a suspended sentence of any length—hon. Mr David Davis: My right hon. Friend is handling Members will know that disqualification is already this in his characteristically rational way, but he made automatic following immediate imprisonment of more one comment that I really cannot leave unchallenged. than a year—or, in other words, if serious wrongdoing He said that the Bill is progressing without any serious was proved; or if an MP was suspended by the House assault on its central tenet. Its central tenet is that for a for at least 21 sitting days, or 28 continuous days, which wide range of offences, which under the current criteria again would indicate proven serious wrongdoing. Members would include the expulsion of the hon. Member for will of course consider carefully all the amendments Bradford West (George Galloway) for impugning another that have been tabled, but it is only reasonable to Member of this House—not a financial or criminal observe that both other views, whatever their merits, do offence—Members could be cast to a jury in which not implement the particular commitments that all effectively one member, or 10%, could vote and find parties made to the electorate at the previous election. them guilty.In other words, 90% of a Member’s constituents could think that they should stay and 10% could think Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the Minister for how he that they should go, and on that basis, under the is presenting his argument as, ironically enough, debates Government’s proposals, the Member would be thrown in the House are often most fractious when there is the out. smallest difference between people. However, I suggest that the flaw in his argument is his reliance on the words Greg Clark: I learnt to take a rational approach “misconduct” and “wrongdoing” which, under the Bill, during my many happy years working with my right will be determined only by MPs. That is the problem for hon. Friend, so he will forgive me if I apply it here. I will many members of the public, as they would like to be move on to talk about the point he makes later. Suffice able to decide what constitutes wrongdoing and misconduct. it to say that if the figure of 10% was reached, that would trigger a by-election in which the Member could Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman expresses his reasonable of course stand. I know that he has personal experience and important point well. As I said on Second Reading, of doing that. Indeed, I campaigned for his successful I do not take the view that the Bill cannot be strengthened. re-election. One thing we can conclude from the Second Reading Let me reflect on some of the concerns raised on debate is that we will want to reflect, in Committee and Second Reading that are germane—you will be relieved during the Bill’s later stages, on the public’s involvement. to hear, Mr Amess—to the amendments before us. The Bill can be improved and clarified, and I repeat my Members were concerned that a process that allowed personal assurance that the Government will be open to recall for any reason could be put to vexatious use in a reflecting improvements in the Bill during its passage. number of different respects. First, it could be used to Amendment 42, a cross-party amendment that was hound someone out of office because of honestly held ably spoken to by the hon. Member for Somerton and and sincerely expressed views. Secondly, it could be Frome (Mr Heath)—although he is my hon. Friend, he used to wage a war of attrition, with recall petition after has the demeanour of a right hon. Member—proposes recall petition being opened by just 5% of the electorate 97 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 98 who have conceived a grievance against a sitting MP. to everyone on the electoral roll. Indeed, the statement Thirdly, it could be used for limitless expenditure on could be positively libellous, and although the MP propaganda intended to destabilise an MP, by vested could seek damages though the courts, the injury to interests that the MP might be brave in confronting, their reputation would be difficult, if not impossible, to well before any spending limits for an actual recall repair. petition kicked in. Mr Kevan Jones: We have heard the word “vexatious” Mr Lansley: Whereas my hon. Friend the Member used a lot in this debate, but people with strongly held for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) included in clause 9 views on abortion, for example, are not vexatious. I am of his Recall of Elected Representatives Bill a provision not suggesting that the Minister is saying that, but I whereby any process would be stayed where there was think that we need to differentiate between vexatious an indictment on a chargeable offence, that has not silliness and people having strongly held personal beliefs been included in the amendments before us today. Does that might be at odds with certain groups within their my right hon. Friend agree that that is another flaw in constituencies. the amendments? Clearly a notice of intent could include statements that would be prejudicial to a police investigation, Greg Clark: The right hon. Gentleman—everyone as well as potentially very libellous and unfounded. My who has contributed today seems to be right hon. The right hon. Friend has not yet noted this—I am sure that hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course Parliament, he has read it—but in those circumstances the Member and election to it, should be the subject of significant would be given two working days in which to frame a debate on issues of contention; that is the purpose of reply to the statement of reasons. Parliament, and of standing for election. Therefore, it is not right to assume that any challenge to an MP would be, in and of itself, vexatious—quite the opposite—but Greg Clark: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. at times it might be possible for people with less high-minded He points to some other flaws in the amendment, which motives to take that approach. in itself is designed to be sensible and constructive, as having a statement and a rebuttal is clearly sensible. Let me briefly address the principal amendments and new clauses in this group. Amendment 1 and new clause Let me turn to the amendments tabled by a group of 1, tabled and spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member colleagues on both sides of the House, including the for Richmond Park, would delete the two conduct-related hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, my hon. Friend triggers for the recall of an MP and replace them with a the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike system of petition-based recall for any reason, to be Freer), the hon. Members for Sheffield South East initiated by 5% of the electorate signing a notice of (Mr Betts), for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for intent to recall. That would trigger an official recall Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), the right hon. petition that, if signed by 20% of the electorate within Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and my hon. Friend eight weeks, would lead to a recall referendum. If the the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith). I have a great majority of those voting in that referendum voted for deal of sympathy with the thinking behind the amendments, recall, the seat would be vacated and a by-election which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome set called. There is nothing to stop repeated, or even parallel, out comprehensively. They would give the public a role, notice of recall petitions being lodged, all with attendant which some have felt has been missing, in initiating publicity and each requiring only 5% of the electorate recall, and provide an answer to the charge that one to sign, meaning that an MP could suffer a prolonged flaw of the Bill is that it is about MPs marking their bombardment of negative publicity in that way. own homework. Those are two themes that emerged on Second Reading. In line with our manifesto commitments, Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): The Minister and with the views of many Members who spoke on said on Second Reading that he thought that the Bill Second Reading, and indeed today, the important point needed to be improved and that there could be amendments. about the amendments is that they would keep the If not these, does he have in mind some Government recall process focused on misconduct, which I think is amendments to deal with some of the issues about the advantage of the approach he has set out. democracy? The amendments propose that where misconduct in public office is alleged, electors in a constituency would 7.15 pm be able to start a petition to initiate a recall process. Greg Clark: I do, and if my right hon. Friend—I They would require 100 electors to support the petition know him to be right hon.—is patient, I will make those before it could be presented to an election court. I do suggestions later. not need to labour the point—my hon. Friend mentioned New clause 2 is operable only if amendment 1 and it—that this is a suggested way forward that clearly new clause 1 are passed. It provides for a 200-word raises important legal drafting requirements, so I do not statement by the promoter of the recall petition, and a think that it will be possible at this stage to commit to reply by the defending MP, to be included in the petition. endorsing them. But I think that he has proposed an Let me say something about some of the flaws in that important avenue and the possibility of a third trigger understandable provision. The notice of intent to recall that is linked to an initiative of the public, which is could contain accusations that are unfounded or unproven. valuable. Although the MP would of course have the right to With regard to some of the difficulties, there is a reply, the inclusion of an unfair and unfounded statement widening of the definition of misconduct to include on an official communication to every elector would “gross dereliction of duty”. As others have said, that almost certainly damage their reputation, particularly would require some understanding of what that might as the petition officer has a duty to send the statement embrace. 99 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 100

Lady Hermon: In relation to the possibility of the Kevin Brennan: Is the Minister’s understanding of the Government looking at a third trigger relating to amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond misconduct in public office and the question whether Park (Zac Goldsmith) that they could cause an hon. that applies equally to Northern Ireland and Scotland Member to be subject to a recall petition for voting and to England and Wales, may I say ever so gently to against those amendments? the Minister that issues such as parading, stopping parading, flying flags and not flying flags can be criminal Greg Clark: I do not know whether departure from offences in Northern Ireland, and public representatives an election manifesto would constitute a reason for may become involved in them, so drafting this provision recall under my hon. Friend’s proposals, but the hon. carefully in relation to Northern Ireland will take some Gentleman stood on the same manifesto as we did in time? favour of our brand of recall. He is tempting me on to a path that it is probably not profitable to go down. Greg Clark: We will attend to the points that the Let me say to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton hon. Lady makes. They apply perhaps with even more and Frome and the colleagues who signed his amendment force to the possibility of a recall in Northern Ireland that I understand where they are coming from. I am being triggered initially by 5% of the electorate, for any willing to contemplate ways to improve this Bill, and reason. In relation to the arrangements in Northern between now and Report I undertake to reflect seriously Ireland, we have taken care not to cause repeated debate on how that can be done. and contention when that would be against the interests I have much sympathy with the amendment to new of democracy in the Province. Nevertheless, I will reflect clause 2 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for on her words. South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice).

Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con): May I Wayne David: Will the Minister give way? take the Minister to task about his comments on new clause 2, which stands in my name? He suggested that Greg Clark: No. I want to make a bit of progress, if I there is almost a greater likelihood of libellous may. statements being put on the statement of reasons The amendment would ensure that the statement of than on anything else. In an election process, many reasons could not contain reasons relating to a Member’s pieces of paper are put into the public domain, and freedom of expression in Parliament, including what an they are properly scrutinised. I do not believe that MP said or how he or she voted. In other words, recall anybody who puts out something that is potentially by petition would be focused on conduct, not causes. libellous will not feel the full force of the law. The duty However, it would not stop people campaigning for of care remains, come what may, and this document is recall based on what the MP did in Parliament; it would no more susceptible to a problem than any election simply prevent the statement of reasons from being leaflet. disclosed in relation to the statutory requirement to avoid such matters. Other publicity could state with Greg Clark: My hon. Friend takes me to task in a impunity other reasons, perhaps the real reasons, behind very gentle way. It may be true that election leaflets may the move to recall an MP. It therefore would not work contain statements that are contentious to the point of as a safeguard, which many Members will wish for, to being alleged to be untruthful, but a statement that is prevent Members’ freedom of expression from being supplied by the returning officer to every elector may be used to recall them. I hope that my right hon. Friend viewed as having official authority, whereas the leaflets will reflect on that, and we will look to see whether the that we produce at election time, whatever our intentions, spirit of the amendment might be carried forward separately. may be discounted to a greater extent, if I may put it that way. I turn to the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), who is not in his place. They would give the Bill retrospective Anne Marie Morris: But the Post Office delivers our effect in that a currently serving MP who had been election addresses to every single household, and that suspended by the House for at least 21 sitting days gives them some standing: they are not just pieces of would be liable to a recall petition. Only one such marketing. person is currently sitting in Parliament—the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who was suspended Greg Clark: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable for a month in 2002. The House tends not to favour point. She will remember that I applauded the intention retrospectivity. In general, the courts impose punishments of her new clause, which was to allow a reason to be for offences that were current at the time of the offence. given for a recall. However, even the arrangements that we have at present were not sufficient to deal with a Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab): For the case where a very offensive statement was circulated sake of clarity, if the amendment were to be passed, linking the candidacy of Members of the European would, for example, the 10-day suspension of the right Parliament to a protest against the murder of Lee hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) be in the bank so Rigby in a wholly distasteful way. These things are not that he could afford only another 11, were that to arise? proof against abuses of the kind that I mentioned. Greg Clark: No, because suspensions are not cumulative, Kevin Brennan: Will the Minister give way? and that would be below the trigger level. It is in a similar spirit that I approach the amendments Greg Clark: Once more, and then I will make some tabled by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West progress. Fife and his colleagues. I welcomed the tone of his 101 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 102 remarks and his commitment to finding ways to strengthen be initiated on the basis of votes cast or of what a this Bill, where they are available, so that it can command Member says in the Chamber or does in motions. Are the support of the House and, indeed, the country. the Government prepared to look kindly on my amendment Amendment 45 makes the second trigger more easily and consider it? sprung, if I may put it like that. It would reduce the suspension that triggered recall from 21 to 10 sitting days—this is partly an answer to the hon. Member for 7.30 pm Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd)—or from 28 to Greg Clark: I always look kindly on any proposals by 14 continuous days were it to be expressed in that way. my hon. Friend. I intend to finish with his amendment, Since 2000, four MPs have been recommended for a so I will come to it. I completely respect and approve of suspension that would trigger the second condition for the sentiment behind it, and I hope my hon. Friend will recall. Under the amendment, nine rather than four accept what I say in response to it. MPs would have been subject to recall. Let me make some progress, because I have spoken as I accept the constructive spirit in which the amendment much as other Members have. Labour’s amendment 46 was offered, but let me explain my difficulty with it. would ensure that a Member of Parliament who was There are two ways in which an MP can be suspended convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence from the House: first, through a recommendation by committed before this Bill is enforced would be subject the Standards and Privileges Committee; or secondly, to a recall petition process. It would cover historic and this relates to your chairmanship of this Committee, offences that, though not committed at the time of the Mr Amess, through disorderly conduct in the Chamber MP’s election, were not known to the electorate at the and then being named by the Speaker. If an MP is time. suspended after being named by the Speaker, the suspension I have great sympathy for that point. As I said earlier, is for five sitting days for a first offence and 20 sitting retrospectivity is extremely rare in this House, but this is days for a second offence. Setting the figure at 21 sitting an important point about the electorate’s ability to days, as the Bill does, excludes the possibility that a judge a Member’s misconduct. If a Member had committed suspension from the House following being named by an offence and the information was not in the public the Speaker for a second offence would trigger recall. I domain, and if they were elected with the electorate do not think that was the intention of the disciplinary being in ignorance of that offence and it subsequently measures that are in place. came to light and was the subject of a conviction, I Members in all parts of the House have incurred the think that that is a circumstance in which it would be sanction of the Chair. Being suspended is not a trivial reasonable for that Member to be recalled. I will return matter. It seems to me, however, that breaking the rules to the issue and hope the hon. Member for Dunfermline of order in the Chamber is not the same as a suspension and West Fife will engage in some discussions with me, for misconduct based on a recommendation by the which might satisfy the hon. Member for Caerphilly Standards and Privileges Committee. Tam Dalyell, for (Wayne David), who is sitting behind him, to see whether example, was suspended for 20 days in 1989 for having we can more perfectly capture that point in the Bill. been named twice. Because of this technical overlap, I Amendment 47 would mean that a Member of hope that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Parliament convicted for any offence under section 10 Fife will reflect on the drafting of the amendment and of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009—that is, an not press it to a vote. offence related to MPs’ allowances—would be subject to recall regardless of the sentence imposed. I think the Mr David Davis: This goes straight to the point that I whole House will want to send a clear signal that raised with my right hon. Friend about the hon. Member criminal abuse of the expenses system will lead to for Bradford West (George Galloway), who, if I remember judgment before constituents as well as court. The correctly, was suspended for 21 days for refusing to amendment is technically deficient, because the way in apologise after impugning the merits—shall we say?—of which it would be placed in the Bill would rule out the other Members of this House. Many things would lead possibility of an appeal, unlike the other criminal triggers. to this. Ian Paisley the elder was, I think, named a I again offer to work with the hon. Member for Dunfermline couple of times and suspended. These things should not and West Fife to see whether we can agree on a considered come anywhere near to causing a recall. That is part of reflection of that purpose for Members to consider on the problem with the Government’s mechanism, which Report. is being held up as precise and effective but is in fact a Finally, as far as amendments tabled by Opposition blunt weapon of considerable size and unexpected Front Benchers are concerned, amendments 48 and 49 outcomes. would mean that, if an MP was suspended from their role in another elected capacity, including from their Greg Clark: My right hon. Friend makes the same parish council, district council, county council, devolved point as I am making to the hon. Member for Dunfermline legislature, city council or the European Parliament—the and West Fife. The reduction of the trigger would bring hon. Gentleman mentioned a hypothetical example that into scope the suspensions that are occasioned for disorderly might have caused him to reflect on this matter—they conduct in the House. should be able to be subject to recall from this House. There is certainly a debate to be had about recall for Sir Edward Leigh: Will the Minister give the elected offices, as I made clear on Second Reading. This Government’s view on my amendment? If the amendment is a limited Bill, but that is not to say that there is not a tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond good case to be made for provisions to be extended Park fails, my amendment would still stand, because it elsewhere in due course. Until that debate is concluded, applies to the whole Bill. It states that no action would however, it would seem odd that a councillor could be 103 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 104

[Greg Clark] Geraint Davies: I have in my hand “Profiles in Courage”, a book John F. Kennedy wrote 50 years ago when he recalled from this place because of a suspension from was in hospital with a back injury inflicted during the the council when they could not be recalled from the war. It is about eight Senators in American history council itself. It also raises the question of whether a whose common characteristic was that they stood up parish council’s standards for suspension, for instance, for principle against the popular view and often against are an accurate reflection of the practice in this place. their own party. They often suffered the electoral Without being churlish to the hon. Gentleman—I had consequence of that, which eventually resulted in the some experience in opposition of drafting amendments—I termination of their political careers. should like to point out that it is pointless to include a I want to focus on the amendments tabled by the hon. reference to the European Parliament, since one cannot Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), because be an MP and an MEP at the same time. it strikes me that the essence of what they propose is in fact in direct contradiction with the aim of encouraging Jonathan Edwards: Unfortunately, my new clause 4 noble behaviour such as that of past politicians—not was outside the scope of this Bill, but it would have only in America, but here—who stood up for what they empowered the devolved institutions with the ability to believed was right, not what was popular. introduce their own recall mechanisms, if they wished During this simple debate, many of us—possibly all to do so. On Second Reading, the Minister said there of us—will have been inundated with e-mails from had been no such request from the devolved Parliaments. 360 Degrees. [HON.MEMBERS: “38 Degrees.”] 38 Degrees— If that request was forthcoming, when would the that’s the one. I remember it well. 360 Degrees is the Government be able to legislate? evolutionary future—the mutation—of 38 Degrees. If the hon. Gentleman’s amendments are agreed to, we Greg Clark: I cannot answer that question. The scope could look forward to powerful groups with vested of the Bill is set. We had not at that time had such a interests—be they people who are on the political margins request and I cannot say whether one has been made or those with financial interests—focusing their fire since. through mass mailings in order to conjure up an apparent demand for the recall of a particular Member over something that had nothing to do with their misconduct, Mr Kevan Jones: The Minister has mentioned the but everything to do with a political position that might European Parliament. Does he not think it is ironic that not be popular. MEPs can be convicted of fraud of their expenses and still remain Members of the European Parliament? Like other Members, I fear that politics today—and From 2009 to 2014, I think that three UKIP Members this is the view of the public—is too much driven by fiddled their expenses but were not thrown out of the focus groups or politicians seeking to please particular European Parliament. people, rather than giving some leadership and seeing the fruits of their fortune mature over time. As I mentioned earlier, I stood against a particular planning decision on Greg Clark: I repeat what I said on Second Reading: I beach motorbiking, which seemed popular at the time. think there is a strong case to extend these provisions to After debate and consideration, the council came round other elected bodies, but the Bill proposed by our to the view that there would be environmental damage manifestos and the coalition agreement related to this to the beaches and an impact on Swansea’s image as a place. quality tourist destination, and residents came round to Amendment 41, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member the view that it would spark weekend motorbike joyriding for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), would not allow and so on. Over time, the view of the public in fact speeches, questions or voting to be reasons for recall. I changed, but had there been a recall system at that time, completely sympathise with my hon. Friend’s intention. had there been financial support from those who wanted Having served under his chairmanship of the Public to make money out of that venture—there could be Accounts Committee, I saw the ferocity of his interrogation thousands of such examples—it not only might have of some witnesses, and were they misfortunate enough ended the career of the MP, but more likely have been to be his constituents, that might well lead them to background noise that caused intimidation. trigger a recall petition, which would be completely If companies with financial interests in planning, or a inappropriate. group of such financial organisations, persevere on a I am afraid, however, that the amendment would particular issue over several years and choose to target have unforeseen consequences. Specifically, the suspension different people at different times, they can corrupt or of a Member for tabling parliamentary questions in distort the way in which certain Members behave through return for payment might be precisely the sort of misconduct intimidation behind the scenes or directly. That is a very for which this Bill is designed to trigger recall. Therefore, dangerous direction in which to be going. to exclude questions, speeches and so on would not Alongside that is the issue of particular political serve the purpose that my hon. Friend and I would wish groups or parties. To return to the example of Guantanamo to see, but I understand and agree with the spirit behind Bay, some people in my then constituency took the view his amendment. When we come to Report and as the that my standing up for a constituent there—for their Bill progresses, I will reflect seriously on the issue. If he rights to a fair trial, a fair hearing and fair treatment—was will join me in a conversation about that, I will see what completely irrelevant, because my constituent was obviously we can do at the next stage. guilty before having been tried and I should not be I hope I have given a reasonable assessment of the talking about him. If somebody had wanted to make a Government’s take on the amendments and that the big issue about that, I might have been in a more Committee can continue its debate on that basis. difficult position. As I mentioned earlier, I like to think 105 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 106 that I would have continued to stand up for principles Obviously, if we break a law, we should not be above the rather than popularity, but we are all in Parliament in a law, but I might be an MP and support the wrong democratic situation. The point I am trying to make is football team. People may laugh at this, but people that, in the round, if we allow the amendments of the might say, “We don’t want someone for Liverpool who hon. Member for Richmond Park to go through, it supports West Ham”, and there might be enough of would be an intrinsic corruption of our democracy. them to mount a challenge, which would be a massive distraction. Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab): Before Chris Mullin became a Member of Parliament, he Mr Kevan Jones: Tempting as it is to get 11,000 campaigned with great courage for the release of the people to turn up tomorrow in the constituency of the Birmingham Six, for which he was denounced by so hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan many newspapers and all the rest of it. Knowing him, Edwards), the important point is that—as in the case of he would have done exactly the same if he had been a Ann Cryer, which I raised earlier, or the very good Member of Parliament, but can my hon. Friend imagine example given by my hon. Friend the Member for what would have happened to him with a recall and how Walsall North (Mr Winnick)—in a well-organised campaign difficult it would have been for him to campaign so with finance or perhaps a newspaper behind it, it would courageously, even though he had a pretty safe seat not actually be that difficult to get such numbers of when he did become a Member? people to turn up.

Geraint Davies: The point about Chris Mullin is well Geraint Davies: That is completely right. Even if it made. Different people with different temperaments in was not possible in many cases to muster such forces, it different situations, with different constituencies with would obviously be possible in some. The question is different profiles and majorities, will face different stresses whether that is right, and whether it would that necessarily and strains—not just actual and in your face, but behind be a good reason for recall. Cases have been mentioned the scenes. As I have said, that might have a very of having to confront in particular communities very corrosive influence on democracy itself, and we should difficult human rights issues that are difficult to talk stand fully against it. about in the first place, but the threat of recall would hang over someone in a marginal seat that had certain All of us like to think that despite pressure behind the movements or certain communities. One needs to be scenes or otherwise, one would put principle before able to talk freely about such matters without intimidation. popularity. With fixed-term Parliaments, we know that we will have five years of making difficult decisions, but Thomas Docherty: My hon. Friend mentioned have the time to explain such things. However, we might representing somebody who had not been found guilty be faced with instant demands or pressures, which—let of anything. I do not know whether he is aware of this, us face it—might be orchestrated by political parties but under the amendments tabled by the hon. Member against those in particularly marginal seats. There would for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), if a Member of be issue after issue, and requests to do this and to do Parliament faces trial, that due process might be completely that. People from 38 Degrees, or whatever it is called, bypassed and the MP would go straight to a recall are just the tip of the iceberg. Lots of other groups petition. An hon. Member who was subsequently would insist on the immediate satisfaction of their completely exonerated of all charges might have lost demands. It is easy to get groups of people to send in their seat in the heat of such a moment. letters without their thinking through the issues. It would all become a sort of crowd mentality, and before Geraint Davies: Precisely. If one’s defence is, “I’m not we knew it, people who should be MPs would be a murderer,” all that people hear is the word “murderer”. intimated and not stand, and it would also interfere Clearly, enough charges might be brought against a with the quality of people who came forward. person who is targeted for whatever reason, perhaps by a political party or financial interest that knows someone Jonathan Edwards: Surely the defence against the else can be put in if they are got out of the way. The scenario that the hon. Gentleman presents is the fact example has been given of the American gun lobby that the threshold, as suggested in the amendments of displacing someone who wanted to improve people’s the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), protection against guns and replacing them with someone would be 20% of the electorate, and that people would who was clearly in the gun lobby’s pocket. Once a few physically have to visit the town hall and put their name heads had rolled in various constituencies over time, to a recall petition. [Interruption.] Well, it would be other MPs would think, “I don’t want to end up like 20% to initiate the final recall mechanism for a recall Harry or Harriet”, or whoever it happens to be, and we by-election. In my constituency, that would be more would get into all sorts of difficulties. than 11,000 people. If 11,000 people went to the town We should guard against the rush to populism in the hall in Ammanford and wanted my recall, I would amendments of the hon. Member for Richmond Park. resign myself. We should uphold judgment and principle, rather than quick popularity. I find the amendments very worrying, Geraint Davies: Yes, but my understanding is that 5% which is why I wanted to speak on this issue. would be needed to start the process. My issue is with recall being within the armoury of Lady Hermon: The hon. Member for Belfast East those who want to intimidate people for any reason. On (Naomi Long) is not present, but I am sure that she will the face of it, it might be for a policy reason, but I not mind if I speak for her on this one occasion. She is a thought that we were supposed to be discussing behavioural member of the Alliance party. She does not sit on issues in relation to conduct and doing the right thing. Belfast city council, but her party colleagues on the 107 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 108

[Lady Hermon] which the petition and, ultimately, the referendum are determined. The individual must be willing to put his council decided to fly the Union flag on the 17 flag-flying name forward. days, rather than 365 days a year. As a consequence, she On Second Reading, it was suggested that an individual received death threats. What concerns me about the who was not the prime mover behind the recall petition proposal of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac might be used. I believe that the electorate are sensible Goldsmith) is how vulnerable the hon. Lady would enough to work out when something is a sham and become to those who want to make vexatious claims when the person is just a place saver. I am therefore not about something over which she had no control. convinced that that is a real risk.

Geraint Davies: I am grateful for that example. It is Mr Kevan Jones: I am sorry, but having read the hon. difficult to imagine how much harassment there would Lady’s new clause, I do not think it would do anything be if the amendment was agreed to. Harassment can of the sort. It would leave it wide open for the reason to happen through a range of mechanisms and can be be a matter of conscience on which the Member has sophisticated. People would protest using electronic spoken in the House or a matter of conduct in their and social media, as well as conventional media, to family life that is nothing to do with this place. The threaten people with recall. Ultimately, we are all human reason could be anything. Only one elector would have and we have families. Members will say, “I haven’t done to be identified. What about all the other electors? anything wrong, but this is affecting my children in Would she insist that they have their names and addresses school.” published as well? We need the space to discuss things with clarity and, hopefully, rationality. Obviously we express differences, Anne Marie Morris: The hon. Gentleman has not and we all understand that that can provoke passion. heard my comments on the second part of the new However, to have a mechanism by which we could all be clause. I was talking about the named promoter and targeted or intimidated, that could distort people’s will get on to the reason and the right of reply for the judgments, and that could affect whether people were Member of Parliament. here or not would be fundamentally in conflict with the ideals to which we aspire in this House. The hon. Gentleman’s question about the promoter has already been answered by a number of Members who support the amendments of my hon. Friend the Anne Marie Morris: Passing a recall Bill is one of the Member for Richmond Park. The general view is that most important things that we can do to restore trust we do not publish how people vote in this country. That between Members of Parliament and their constituents. is not a matter of public record. Although I understand I wish that I had heard the word “trust” more in this the concern and think that the idea is worth considering— debate. There is too much concern about the machinations of political parties trying to use the process in an abusive way. Although I understand that concern, surely Mr Kevan Jones rose— the most important principle for an MP is that the relationship they have with their constituents must be Anne Marie Morris: No, I will not give way. Although based on trust. I understand the concern, I do not think that that will That is why I supported the introduction of the Bill. be an issue. It is also why I strongly support the amendments of my The second part of the new clause, on which the hon. hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Gentleman also commented, is the reason. He is right Goldsmith). I have worked with him on a number of the that any reason may be given, but he is wrong if he amendments. Accepting them is one of the only ways in thinks that the electorate are sufficiently unintelligent which we can support the true meaning of democracy and disengaged that they will not read the 200 words and ensure that our constituents have a genuine say. carefully to understand what it is about, particularly Although the Government Bill is well-meaning, to have given the percentages that would be required. This is the a mechanism that can be triggered in such limited ways opportunity for members of the public to clarify what does not underscore the trust that must exist between the individual has done wrong. MPs and their constituents. That trust is critical. One concern that the Minister raised was that the I hear the concerns about abuse. It is partly because statement might be libellous. I explained that that would of those concerns that I tabled new clause 2. I am be no more of a risk in this document than in any other pleased that there are 67 supporters of that proposition. document that is put out in the same way. The new clause intends to take on the challenge of how we should deal with the reason an MP should be Mr Kevan Jones: The hon. Lady has not answered my subjected to recall. We have talked about the challenge point at all. Like the other supporters of the amendments of describing and defining wrongdoing. As has been of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), said many times, it is virtually impossible to do so. The she says that any reason may be given for the recall of new clause would enable the public to put forward very any Member of Parliament. Some well intentioned clearly why a particular Member of Parliament should individuals might use the provisions, but some people be subjected to recall. would finance a campaign. In the example that was There are three parts to new clause 2. First, there given by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North must be accountability in any system. That is why the (Mr Winnick), I am sure that a newspaper would have reason for recall has to be put forward by a named backed a campaign to recall the former Member for individual. The name of the individual must be on the Sunderland South. The same might have been true of record and must be clear at every polling station at the example that I gave of Ann Cryer in Keighley. 109 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 110

Anne Marie Morris: At the end of the day, it depends as in the example given by the hon. Member for North upon trust and the view that we take of the electorate. I Down (Lady Hermon)—or because their party supports trust the electorate to make sense of what is written and a policy? Will the hon. Lady clarify those points? to make a sensible judgment. The public have to deal with all sorts of comments and accusations in the media Anne Marie Morris: On the first point, the rules will every single day. They do not believe everything that is be exactly the same as in a general election, so I do not written. I dispute what the hon. Gentleman says because see that there is a problem. On a Member being recalled he completely underestimates the trust and intelligence because of something that one of their colleagues said, of the British electorate. again I go back to my fundamental point of trust. We either trust the electorate or we do not. They can either Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD): More than 50% of the see that something is frankly true, or they can see it as electorate voted against most Members of the House, rubbish. That would be my view. including myself and the hon. Lady, when we were New clause 2(3) would enable an MP to have a right elected to this place. Does she not see the trap that of reply.There is currently no provision in the Government’s political opponents will cause petitions to be raised to Bill to give the MP any right of reply, and such a try to overturn the results of elections? provision would provide fairness.

Anne Marie Morris: Anything is possible. We live in Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): The hon. Lady the real world of good and bad, but if we make decisions keeps saying that the Government’s proposals—which I about introducing such legislation on the assumption think could be improved—do not require somebody to that the worst will happen, rather than looking at the say what the problem is or allow a response, but does best that will happen, and we do not focus on trust, we she accept that such a process would take place when will be giving the wrong message to the electorate. It somebody has been convicted of a criminal offence or should not be a message about us being concerned been suspended for 21 days, so the problem ought to be about some political group ganging up against us—that fairly obvious? is the wrong message to give to the electorate. The Anne Marie Morris: The hon. Gentleman makes a message should be, “We trust you to make sensible fair point, but I suppose that I simply do not think the decisions.” That for me is imperative. grounds are wide enough. From everything that the Minister has said, it seems that although there are firm 8pm red lines that will not be crossed, even he is looking at the Bill to see how it can be improved. Let us talk about Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady the art of the possible rather than the current constrained for allowing me to intervene. May I draw her attention position in the Bill. to a particular and important scenario in Northern Ireland? Although Northern Ireland was safe enough Jim Dowd: I am not entirely unsympathetic to the to host the G8 summit at Lough Erne and the World thrust of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member Police and Fire Games, it is not safe enough for us to for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), but for one reason know what amount is donated to political parties, and above all others—I think this is the Government’s reason—I we still have anonymity of political donations to political am not yet convinced that I will vote for them. We must parties. I would therefore have no idea who had sponsored understand what the threshold is for the process. The a recall motion to get rid of me in North Down, and Government’s position, even thought I do not support similarly, none of my colleagues from other parties in it in total, is that a single set of circumstances can deal Northern Ireland would know that because of the with this issue. New clause 2 has no threshold, so anonymity. Big money can buy a recall in Northern therefore if one process was concluded unsuccessfully, it Ireland. Will the hon. Lady address that issue? would not stop somebody from starting the whole process again. Can the hon. Lady give me any guarantee that Anne Marie Morris: Clearly, I have no knowledge of that would not happen, once people had been subjected Northern Ireland and exactly how it operates, but the to this measure, and given the damage that even the hon. Lady makes a fair point and there are issues about question of facing recall could do to an individual— funding. However, that applies in every political situation, and I do not think that her points invalidate the suggestion The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood): Order. in new clause 2. Interventions must be a lot shorter than that, and not It seems to me that along with my hon. Friend the replaced by speeches. Member for Richmond Park we have put forward a Anne Marie Morris: Gosh, that was quite a long form of accountability, and with the provision of a intervention and I am not sure I remember it exactly. reason we have provided some transparency. Under the May I indulge the hon. Gentleman, Mr Hood? Could Government’s arrangements there is no explanation or he remind me in one sentence of what he actually said reason. because the intervention was so long? Thomas Docherty: The hon. Lady is generous in Jim Dowd: Under the hon. Lady’s proposals, there giving way and I have two quick points. At the moment, could be an unsuccessful application for recall, but the a voter may choose not to take part in the full register whole thing could be started over and over again. and be only on the so-called edited register. How would new clause 2 apply to such a person? Secondly, is she Anne Marie Morris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying that a Member of Parliament could be recalled his indulgence; that was a much shorter and better not because of something that they did, but because comment. We discussed that point in the committee, one of their fellow party members did something—such and my recollection is that there is provision to deal 111 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 112

[Anne Marie Morris] or with the Opposition amendments. I think the public want something much more direct on the ability to with that, so that someone cannot keep requesting recall an MP not just for misconduct or wrongdoing, recall time and again, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I but because they have said or done something that is so apologise that I cannot point him to the chapter and outwith the opinion of their constituents, or so obnoxious, verse, but I agree that it is an issue that ought to be that people are willing to campaign for their recall. considered. I do not find that a problem. Democracy is a rough Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) old trade at times. We live and die by the sword and the (SNP): Surely the stop for the process continuing over votes. On a number of occasions since I have been in the and over again is the fact of previous failure. A previous House, elements within my electorate would have sought failure will obviously stop it, because if people are a right of recall because of my views on Ireland—I getting nowhere they will not continue. chaired the Guildford Four campaign for a number of years—or, at one point in time, because of my views on Anne Marie Morris: The hon. Gentleman is right and the life expectancy of Mrs Thatcher. They should have that is the way it should work. However, the mechanism that right. They should be able to bring together fellow that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park constituents to suggest that something is so appalling and I are proposing is broader and provides some that a Member of Parliament should be brought before comfort to those who are concerned that the process the court of the electorate once again. will be subject to political game playing. The fundamental issue is the one that my hon. Friend I have talked through the issues of the promoter, the the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) raised. How reason and the opportunity for an MP to be given a do we get that equivalence of influence or power? I right of reply, but I am sure that many amendments understand his argument that one newspaper with vast could be tabled to my hon. Friend’s proposals to address amounts of resources could campaign against an MP. some of those issues. For example, we could require the The Sun had a pop at me at one point in time but, when statement of reasons to start with a certain sentence, that occurred, my popularity went up and my majority which would mean that the statement had to be about increased—that has happened to others. He makes a something that we all feel is inappropriate behaviour valid point that that might be different if there is a from a Member of Parliament. There are things that by-election threat or recall outside a general election. could be done, but they depend on whether we think We need further thought on the right of reply, which our starting point should be the Government’s narrow the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie starting point, or a much broader starting point that Morris) mentioned. How can that be strengthened in would come from a position of trust. terms of both the statements that are made and the Mr Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way? media? That throws up the issue of media ownership, which is a wider debate. We will be forced to come back Anne Marie Morris: Not again. Because I think that— to that and other issues at a later stage, but my view is that the electorate are not just demanding the right of Mr Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way? reply, and there will be a reaction if we do not give them a right of recall beyond the proposed one. Anne Marie Morris: No, I will not: read my lips. You have been incredibly indulgent, Mr Hood, and I Some people are not happy with the right of recall know that many other Members wish to speak in this campaign by 38 Degrees. It was effective not because it debate. New clause 2 goes to a matter of trust and is was backed by big finance or a national newspaper, but sufficiently important for me to ask for it to have a because it was a grass-roots campaign. E-mails coming separate vote when we decide on the amendments. On in their hundreds can be annoying to some MPs, but that note, I will conclude my comments. they demonstrate the vibrancy of our democracy and people’s interest. John McDonnell: I am grateful to the Minister for his Politics has changed in this country. People’s views response on the calculation of days. To be absolutely are no longer shaped solely by the newspaper they read clear—again, this is not out of personal interest at or by the influence of the magnates who own large all—I take it that this totting-up process is within one sections of the media. We are witnessing a lot more parliamentary Session. I would be happy if the Minister people power. People are able to influence individual confirmed that. campaigns and therefore, rightly, to influence MPs’ views. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West Greg Clark indicated assent. (Geraint Davies) was anxious about individual campaigns—he mentioned a planning proposal for the John McDonnell: If there is to be an additional beach. I welcome those campaigns. I welcome people’s number of days, those cannot be carried over from one ability to mobilise and express their views, no matter Session or some of us may well be in trouble or face the how forcefully. I find that, when I explain to campaigners 20 days. I take the straightforward view that this is an that I cannot support them, I win their respect. I am evolving piece of legislation, and I am grateful—the sure the situation is the same in his constituency on Committee will not often hear this—for how Front most occasions. Benchers have tried to get a dialogue going to hone the legislation to make it effective. I do not know—who am I to speak for the general public?—but from what I Geraint Davies: I welcome campaigns in my understand, I do not think those who have been constituency and a vibrant and active democracy. The campaigning for the right of recall for some time will be question is whether we allow a situation whereby an MP satisfied either with what the Government are proposing is subject to a series of recall demands or intimidation, 113 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 114 which would take us to a different place from the one believe it was 36%. The hon. Member for Richmond that my hon. Friend describes, which is simply a healthy Park (Zac Goldsmith) said that we would need 51%, but democracy. it will be 51% of a small amount of the electorate.

John McDonnell: I do not believe that people petitioning John McDonnell: I say again that my hon. Friend or lobbying, or even media campaigns, are intimidation. makes an extremely valid point on the influence of big money in recall elections, but I remind the House that, Geraint Davies: I am talking about recall. even after a recall, the individual has the right to stand John McDonnell: Well, the right to recall time and at the general election, when the same electorate will again is the exercise of the democratic will of the local vote. Therefore, if an individual is unfairly treated in a people. I do not find that intimidating. It is a democratic recall ballot in that way and unfortunately loses, they expression of views and I welcome it. can stand at the general election, in which they will have the same standing as every other candidate who puts In Scotland, there was a huge turnout in the referendum. their name forward. There are protections, but he has a All of us welcomed it. People might not have welcomed valid point that Front Benchers need to consider. How the result at the end of the day, but we all welcomed that can an individual have the right to voice their views turnout. It is alleged that there were elements of intimidation during a recall campaign in a balanced way, with an in the campaign. Nevertheless, people had the sense to equivalence of resources and access to the media? That make up their own minds, whatever intimidation went goes beyond new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member on. for Newton Abbot, which I support. When the recall campaigns take off, they will be driven in some instances 8.15 pm into the local media, and in some instances the national Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): I thank my media. Friend for giving way on that point. I support the It is a simple principle: trust the electorate and the amendment we will vote on later. Clearly, what he says people. The proposed system still has the hurdle of the about expanding democracy and participation is true—it House taking a decision on whether a recall process is is welcome and good. Does he agree that there is a very set in motion. The proposal still involves the House large elephant parked outside the Chamber, namely the narrowing the definition of the basis for recall. Our House of Lords, which is not subject to any kind of constituents might have a much wider view of misconduct electoral accountability, and yet has a huge influence on and wrongdoing, and we must listen to them. legislation and can decide the future of Bills and laws in this country? Surely we need the right to recall or This is not just about restoring confidence in Parliament. remove Members of the House of Lords. We went downhill in the expenses scandal—that disaster affected all MPs, no matter how honest they were, and John McDonnell: We will draft amendments for the those who drove us into the mire damaged us all. We are next stage of the Bill. I had not even thought of amending slowly building confidence. I agree with other hon. it to that extent, but my hon. Friend makes an important Members: people come into the House to do good. This point. We could make it a constitutional reform Bill. was an honourable profession, and I believe it still is. For most of us, the proudest moment of our lives was Geraint Davies: I completely agree that the referendum when we were elected to represent our constituents. The in Scotland was a great expression of the democratic recall discussions will give the message that we have process, but does my hon. Friend agree with a series of listened and are willing to tackle the problem, no matter referendums on Scotland? An MP could be recalled how hard it is. every couple of months if there was a focused attack on them. I presume he would not want another vote in Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance): I accept much Scotland, but perhaps he would. of what the hon. Gentleman says. However, does he agree that MPs from the larger parties have a degree of John McDonnell: There may well be another referendum protection in that they can afford to continue to fight in due course. We might have to listen to the electorate against recall petitions and elections, and that if MPs on that and respect their views. If there is a continuous from minor parties, who have limited resources, are flow of recalls in an individual constituency, that might constantly put under the pressure of recall, they would reflect that there is something seriously wrong within it. be eliminated not for any wrongdoing, but simply because I believe the electorate are wiser than that. If a small they can no longer afford to fight to hold their seat? group campaigned against an individual MP,the electorate would see through it. The electorate who vote in a recall are the same as those who will vote in a general election. John McDonnell: That is a valid point about equivalence I do not see that there would be a significant difference, of arms, and the Front Benches should examine further apart from, as my hon. Friend the Member for North the controls on expenditure during such periods, as well Durham has said, the focus of big money or a powerful as the right of access to the media. I should point out, magnate on a short campaign, which we need to address however, that some of us in the larger parties might not in the debate. get complete protection in some instances—I shall put it no more strongly than that. Mr Kevan Jones: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I support the amendments, and I welcome the willingness he should look at what has happened in the United of those on the Front Benches to work together to get a States. Big money gets behind the campaign. There is a workable piece of legislation that we can all support. I recall when the big money does not like the result—the also look forward to the amendment to abolish the gun control lobby in Colorado is a good example. The House of Lords to be tabled by my hon. Friend the turnout in the recall election can be quite small—I Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). 115 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 116

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con): I speak to not a Conservative MP—I represent everybody, regardless the amendments as someone who is accustomed to of what political party they vote for, and my constituents being in the eye of a political storm. I am possibly the know that. They also know that I will go the extra mile. only MP in the Chamber who has had an attempt at I do not do surgeries once a month—most times I do recall mounted against them. When my hon. Friend the them every week. My constituents know that I will go Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) first the extra mile for them. They know that I do not get tabled the amendments, he asked me to speak about my involved in grubby political games in Parliament. They own experience. At the time I decided not to do so, know that I represent them. I put my constituency because I did not think it was particularly appropriate. before my party, and I put my constituents before But having heard some of the hot air in the Chamber Westminster. I have always done that— tonight, I feel compelled to use my own example, and its consequences, to lay some of those bogus arguments to Mr Jones: Stand as an independent then. rest. The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood): Order. The Two years ago today, I took part in a reality TV hon. Gentleman has had a lot to say tonight in interventions, programme called “I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of and he should stay in order when the hon. Lady is on Here” and I disappeared to Australia. The hon. Member her feet. for North Durham (Mr Jones) asked what would happen if a local or national newspaper ran a campaign against Nadine Dorries: My constituents know exactly what an MP, but I had every national newspaper against me type of MP I am. There has been an elephant sat and not just for a day but for a month—in my study inside—not outside—the Chamber tonight, and it is the they stand waist high. Of course, none of those newspapers reason why the Government have introduced the Bill. said that Parliament was in recess. None of them said They have not introduced it because the public have that I did not miss any Government legislation. None of infinite trust in us, or because they think MPs are them said that I had spent every day of the summer in wonderful people that work hard for their constituents. my constituency office and the trip was my holiday. The Bill has been introduced because the people do not There were even Members who joined in the outcry trust politicians any more. They have no faith in us. against me, giving comments to the newspapers from They need to know that they can have more democratic their sun loungers from Barbados to Benidorm. Nobody control over what we do here because they do not like a said, “Oh, by the way, we are in recess”, and a massive lot of what they see going on. media storm ensued. Even my local radio station, BBC I know that most MPs come here to work hard and Three Counties, went to my constituency and vox-popped look after their constituents, but the Whips Office holds constituents. It did not take comments from constituents the keys to power and ministerial ambition so there is a who were backing me—it refused to do so. The national difference between the consideration that some MPs media created a perfect storm and rode on the crest of it give to their constituents and what they give to their for an entire month, giving them thousands of column own political ambition and their climb up the greasy inches. pole. The difference is as vast as that between sound and In the middle of all of that, someone decided that I silence. Many MPs are one person in their constituencies should be recalled and that they would get together a and a different person entirely at Westminster. People national petition. Out of the entire UK population of are sick of the Whip system, the parliamentary system 65 million, one month to the day after the furore and the party-political system. They do not want to see started, a national online, click and send petition—the that any more because they want people to represent type to which someone can contribute when they have them. They want their opinions represented here. They had a bottle of red wine, or been down the pub, or read do not want grimy deals done such as, “Don’t defect to the local newspaper and got really angry with what they UKIP and I’ll make you a Minister” or “Don’t vote for have read—had just 766 signatures. Facebook was a this Bill because the Liberal Democrats don’t want you different story. The petition got just 16 likes. to.” They know about those deals and they are disgusted. So it is nonsense to say that the media can attack That is why we have the Bill. Members or whip up their constituents to get them The amendments could have been a little grittier, but recalled. There was no national newspaper, political it is vital that we vote for them. It has been argued programme or radio station that did not have it in for tonight that Members could be removed for their position me during that month when I was in Australia— on a particular policy, but if they are good MPs that is nonsense. It has been argued that an MP could be (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con): removed because of a political row, but I am sure that Will my hon. Friend give way? all the 766 people who signed that petition were supporters of the Opposition. During the 2009 expenses crisis, one Nadine Dorries: I am not going to give way at all. thing we knew was that everybody nationally hated Anyone would think that every one of my constituents MPs, but on a constituency basis many people said, loathed me, but they did not. In fact, hardly any of my “No, we don’t like MPs, but our MP is okay.” That is constituents signed that petition. because they know what we do for them and the type of person we are. When MPs do fall down, it is because Mr Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way? they ignore their constituents, do the grubby deals and put their own personal ambition above the interests of Nadine Dorries: No. The hon. Gentleman has taken their constituency. A former Minister complained about up enough time with interventions tonight. the Bill today. I asked whether he would vote for it if he My constituents did not sign that petition because was still a Minister, and he said, “Of course I would.” they know the kind of MP that I am. I am not a That is the root of the problem—collective responsibility party-political MP. When I am in my constituency I am and putting party first. 117 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 118

We need this Bill. I do not believe that we will have say that a recall mechanism would not have made any the benefit of the British public’s trust unless the Bill difference because the MPs involved in those campaigns goes further and we vote through the amendments would have continued regardless. It is true that they tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond would have done so, but it would have made life that Park. Any MP arguing that thousands of people, just much more difficult. In addition to the normal opposition because they are political opponents, would walk down that one inevitably faces in their constituencies and in to the town hall and put their names on a register to get the media and so on, they would have been constantly them out because the local newspaper has a campaign faced with a recall mechanism being applied. If that against them, is talking absolute nonsense. Nobody has were not successful, there would have been another and anything to fear. If you are a good MP, if you put your so on and so forth. I could be wrong, but there would constituency first, if you are part of the people in your have been more difficulties for the sort of campaigns I constituency, and if you take no notice of your Whips have mentioned. Office but do what you should do in principle and do I have already mentioned Chris Mullin this evening. what is right for the people who elected you, then you Just imagine a Member of Parliament getting up in the have nothing to fear from either the amendments or the House of Commons at the time of the undoubted Bill. atrocities committed near my constituency in Birmingham in November 1974 when 21 people were murdered to Mr Winnick: I shall be brief. Let me make it quite say that there had been a miscarriage of justice. We now clear that I certainly have respect for the electorate. know that people were wrongly convicted, but saying Having been elected nine times, and crossing my fingers that would take great courage. It so happened that the that there will be a 10th time, I have every reason to person concerned was not a Member of Parliament at respect the electorate, but my respect would be the same the time, but I repeat that he would have done the same if the electorate’s decision had been different. if had been in the House of Commons. If an MP had campaigned against such a miscarriage of justice—the 8.30 pm Guildford Four are another example—in the face of I think there is a general consensus that there should constant calls, encouraged by the press and others, for be a recall mechanism. The real debate is how we are recurrent recall mechanisms, it would surely have made going to have a recall mechanism that does not damage their life that much more difficult. MPs or their ability to campaign on various matters if they so wish. Let me say again, I do not want any kind Mr MacNeil: On the fear of recurrent recalls, does of cover-up. In the previous Parliament, I was in a the hon. Gentleman agree that an amendment should minority of about four or five MPs—I was standing on be tabled requiring that a person pay a deposit to call a the Government Benches and there were one or two recall referendum, as is the case for elections to Parliament, Liberal Democrats on the Opposition Benches—arguing in order to inhibit constant recall mechanisms and time on a Friday that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 wasting? The deposit might be redeemable only on a should be applied to Parliament. There was a good deal successful recall. of opposition to that. That opposition was not expressed Mr Winnick: It might or it might not. when we debated the matter on successive Fridays, but in other ways and we know what happened in the end. I In future reform campaigns, we will need the courage do not want any cover-ups. I believe that what we do of MPs to do as I have indicated and not to feel and what we spend should be known to the public as it inhibited by the greater pressure put on them by the is now. Moreover, I used to campaign in the 1990s and recall mechanism. If an MP in a highly marginal before then for the outside financial interests of MPs to constituency—my first, and only, majority in Croydon be revealed. There was a great deal of opposition, but was 81—was elected with a majority of, say, 100 or 150, that has all changed. So whatever criticism can be made perhaps winning it for their party for the first time, against me—I am rather critical of the amendment would they, being keen to get re-elected, think that the tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac time to take up a controversial issue? They might wonder Goldsmith)—it cannot be said that my point of view what purpose it would serve, given their slender majority. comes from a desire to cover things up from the electorate. Of course, it is easier for Members with larger majorities to pursue such campaigns, but those with tiny majorities Why am I hesitant, to say the least, to support the would feel greatly inhibited from doing what they might hon. Gentleman’s amendment? I feel it could act as a otherwise consider necessary. kind of inhibition on MPs wishing to campaign. We are constantly told outside, “What we want are not MPs Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): I accept the who go through the Division Lobby because the Whips point about tiny majorities, of course, but the question tell them to do so; they should be more independent is whether we adopt the proposal from my hon. Friend and be able to make up their own minds.” I hope that to the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), the some extent we all try to do that in our own particular proposal for a 50% threshold to get rid of an MP or the way if we are not in the Government or in the official Government’s proposal for 15% or 20%—or is it 5%? Opposition team. However, I come back to the point I Whichever way, it is a relatively small number. That is made in interventions. There have been campaigns that the problem. have made Britain a better and more civilised place: the campaign to abolish capital punishment; the campaign Mr Winnick: Yes, it might be. As I said at the start, to legalise homosexuality; and campaigns to bring about there is bound to be a recall mechanism that the House other changes, for example in the 1960s to outlaw racial will approve by a majority—that is inevitable—but I discrimination. Without wishing to be too party political, stress what the Labour spokesman and others have said that was opposed by the official Tory Opposition at the about the importance of distinguishing between conduct time. Those campaigns were unpopular. Some might and policy. I was in the last Parliament and I have no 119 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 120

[Mr Winnick] I hope that we will reach a majority—I said “consensus” earlier; “majority” is a better word—so that we can say doubt that we did ourselves a great deal of damage. It is we will have a mechanism, but one that will work. It said that the House of Commons has never been popular. should also be one—this is the purpose of my intervention It was said last week that in October 1834, when the in the debate—that does not hinder Members of Parliament building went up in flames, people actually cheered, and in raising issues, however controversial or unpopular, I have even heard it said—although I find it difficult to that they believe to be right. believe, because I am not aware of any great scandal or any allegations of MPs taking unfair rations—that the Sir Edward Leigh: I rise to speak to amendment 41, House of Commons was not particularly popular during standing in my name, which would add the words: the war. We should not have any illusions. Nevertheless, damaging and justified accusations were made against “No action shall be initiated against an MP in relation to a recall petition process on the basis, or as a result of votes cast, many Members and, even though a large majority of speeches made or any text submitted for tabling by such an MP, MPs were found not guilty of fiddling their expenses, within, or as a part of, a parliamentary proceeding.” collectively the accusations did us a great deal of damage, and had that damage not been done, it is unlikely we It is quite obvious what I am trying to get at, and I am would be discussing this matter now. I have no illusions afraid I disagree with my hon. Friends the Members for about that. Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). I believe that parliamentary I do not question for one moment the sincerity of the privilege and our freedom to say anything in this House, hon. Member for Richmond Park. I know that he has a knowing that we will be held to account only in a genuine view, which he has expressed—indeed, I think general election, is a very powerful defence of liberty he expressed it before he came to the House of against tyranny. It is a matter of the utmost importance, Commons—but I have to say, for the reasons I have and I think that the amendment tabled by my hon. stated, that I have some disagreement, to say the least Friend the Member for Richmond Park is extraordinarily with what he is proposing. I would rather have a different dangerous. mechanism. I know that the very phrase “parliamentary privilege” The only other point I would make is about the sounds a bit old fashioned and pompous, but it is danger of tit for tat. I will not mention a certain terribly important in our history. As the Library put it, Member, but I can imagine that in this Parliament there would have been a great deal of pressure from one side “The ancient origins of parliamentary privilege, and the archaic to start the recall mechanism. If that had happened, the language that is sometimes used in describing it, should not disguise its continuing relevance and value. As we have noted…the other side would inevitably have acted in the same way. work of Parliament is central to our democracy, and its proceedings It is always the same in the House of Commons: if one must be immune from interference by the executive, the courts or side starts a process that is damaging to the other side, anyone else who may wish to impede or influence those proceedings the other side responds accordingly. We could have this in pursuit of their own ends.” tit-for-tat business—it might not happen, but it is a For centuries, we have maintained from the Bill of possibility—where MPs put great pressure on their Rights the absolute freedom of extraordinarily difficult, leaders by saying, “Why don’t we start the recall process? unpopular, unfashionable people to say difficult, The other side did it over X; why don’t we do it over Y?” unfashionable, unpopular things in this House, knowing I wonder whether that would do much good for the that nobody outside in any court—this is where I disagree reputation of the House of Commons. with my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), who wants to set up some electoral Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab): It seems to process or court, or whatever it is called—can hold me that one of the big issues with trust in politicians them to account. Every Member has known for centuries concerns money. Does my hon. Friend agree that we that they have the freedom to express very unpopular really should look at Members’ second jobs, which has opinions, knowing that they can be held to account only a lot to do with the erosion of trust? at a subsequent general election.

Mr Winnick: I am sure my hon. Friend is right. At the end of it, I hope we will all reach a consensus of a 8.45 pm kind—well, at least a majority. Indeed, why do we slam the door in the face of Black Rod at the opening of Parliament? History is important. Mr MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman mentioned tit for There was a time when the King marched up that aisle tat, but does not game theory suggest that if someone and tried to arrest some of us. It was not because we knew that starting a recall effort would be reacted to were guilty of some corrupt act; it was because we were by the other side—if, indeed, the motive was political— saying things that the Executive did not like. Ever since that would prevent the process from starting in the then, and culminating in the events of the 1680s—when, first place? The potential for tit for tat eliminates that I am sorry to say, there was a king on the throne who possibility, which brings us back to dealing with genuine was trying to set up an absolute monarchy—we have scenarios. maintained this privilege through the Bill of Rights. It is not some old-fashioned, archaic term that is irrational Mr Winnick: It might do, and that scenario might not and that should be swept away on a tide of populism. If arise in the first place. I am just saying that there is a we were to go down the Richmond Park route, we possibility that if that did happen, it could damage the would not be making this place more democratic and reputation of the House of Commons. All these are accountable. Actually, we would be silencing the freedom matters that I hope will be taken into consideration. of this place to express unpopular opinion. 121 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 122

Mr MacNeil: What I think the hon. Gentleman has The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John been describing over a period of centuries has been the McDonnell) mentioned one of my own colleagues saying evolution of politics and the evolution of democracy something in the Chamber that was frankly racist. If he right on to the granting of universal suffrage. I would had said it outside the House, he might have been taken argue that what the hon. Member for Richmond Park to court. I do not want to use a cliché, but, although (Zac Goldsmith) is suggesting and wants us to move what he said may have been completely wrong, I, like towards is the next extension in that evolution of democracy Voltaire, may disagree with or hate what he said, but that started those 300 or 400 years ago. respect his freedom to say it in this place. If you cannot speak your mind here, knowing that you cannot be held Sir Edward Leigh: I know that that is what my hon. to account, where else in our kingdom can you speak Friend the Member for Richmond Park argues and I your mind? know that the new hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas What my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Carswell) argues the same—that this place is somehow Park is doing is fundamentally very dangerous indeed. increasingly irrelevant, part of a Westminster political It goes against centuries of our history. Is our history so class or an elite and that we need rather to transfer very wrong? Have we not ensured that our country is power into some sort of referendum-based democracy. the only country in Europe that has never been a police This, however, is a sort of Poujadist argument, and if state, and has never had a police state imposed on it? we look at history, we find that it has often led to Has not the House of Commons, through all those tyranny. Dare I say it, some insurrections that have centuries, guarded by these privileges, protected fundamental come from the right—I shall not mention any political freedoms? Is that not something to be proud of? For party that has been in the news recently—often result in those reasons, I—along with Members in all parts of stirring up a feeling in the country that things are really the House—will vote against my hon. Friend’s amendment. appalling. Then a particular group of people can be Freedom of speech—allowing Members of Parliament picked on—it may be Poles now, it might have been total freedom of expression, with a very few traditional Jews in the last century and might have been Catholics exceptions, such as insulting the sovereign—has always in the 17th century—and popular opinion can be whipped been defended by Parliament. up, followed by an attack on the so-called establishment or on particular MPs for what they are saying. Mr MacNeil: Oh, come on! There is a lot of wisdom in this place. We are a Sir Edward Leigh: If the hon. Gentleman wants to parliamentary democracy; we discuss things among insult the sovereign, I personally am perfectly happy ourselves. That is not an elitist thing to say. We are with that. I do not think that he should be recalled by a having a good debate now, and we have heard wonderful group of MPs for insulting the sovereign, or for anything speeches from the hon. Member for Swansea West else. (Geraint Davies), who argued for one point of view, and from the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), Mr MacNeil rose— who has argued from a different point of view. We have heard different speeches from my hon. Friends the Sir Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman has already Members for Mid Bedfordshire and for Richmond Park. intervened once. We will hear other speeches from the Minister, who might offer us on a half-way case. We are discussing the Mr MacNeil rose— issues in a rational and popular way, but we know that nothing we say here, no vote that we cast and no speech Sir Edward Leigh: All right, I will give way, just to we make can ever be held against us until that awesome please the hon. Gentleman. day—general election day—arrives, when we are exactly the same as anybody else. Mr MacNeil: I am listening to what is quite an egalitarian speech. I am a monarchist myself, but I do We are not talking about any particular group who not like the idea of separating one person from another can spend vast sums of money—the hon. Member for in this context. The hon. Gentleman himself referred to North Durham reminded us again and again of what the monarch coming into the Chamber. I think that the happens in the United States—to attack us on a strand of history that we are talking about has featured particular issue and try to get rid of us on that basis. We the elites giving way when they have had to give way, stand with 650 other people. We are equal and the and that is happening again now. The elites are giving people vote us in or out on the basis of a broad range of way, or they should be giving way. policies. I know that the Government will say that my amendment Sir Edward Leigh: The myth that is being propagated is not necessary, because it will involve the procedures by some Members—not least by the new hon. Member of the Privileges Committee and all the rest of it. I for Clacton, whom I respect in many ways—is that we think, however, that my amendment probably is necessary are an elite. We are not an elite. We have all been elected in this sense. I am grateful to the Minister for saying by people, and we can all be unelected by people. that he would look on it with a kindly light. We live in a We in the House of Commons must be prepared to very judgmental age. We have had instances with the be proud of what we have achieved. We must acknowledge hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway), all the appalling errors that we have made over Members’ who as usual is not in his place. He comes here and expenses and a number of other issues; no doubt we rants and says the most outrageous things. We have had have been found wanting in many respects; we are only cases in the past involving Tam Dalyell, that wonderful human beings, and all the rest of it. But the argument man, and Ian Paisley, that equally wonderful man. that there is a better form of democracy—that some They were expelled from Parliament. kind of participatory democracy based on referendums 123 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 124

[Sir Edward Leigh] Sir Edward Leigh: Yes, that is a very fair point. In those days some Members were thrown out because and people getting together and collecting petitions is they held opinions that were wildly unpopular with the more democratic than debate in this House—is general public. fundamentally flawed. I realise that that may be an John Wilkes absconded to France after being charged unfashionable opinion. with libel over issue No. 45 of the North Briton. He was convicted of libel and blasphemy and seditious libel. He Zac Goldsmith rose— was then returned to the House by his own electors, despite having been expelled, and he finally managed to Sir Edward Leigh: As I have taken the hon. Gentleman establish his right to stay in the House. I think that was to task so strongly, I think it only fair that he should the last case of a Member who was expelled from the have a chance to gainsay me. House for his views. So, in defence of the Government and of the present system, I think we can pretty fairly Zac Goldsmith: I shall not seek to persuade my hon. establish that nobody in the last 200 years has been Friend on the fundamental issue of principle that he is expelled from the House, or had any sort of recall-type discussing. I think that he has correctly identified the of procedure initiated, on the basis of just the speeches line in the sand. People will have to take a view based on they made or the votes they cast. what he has said, or on what I and others have said, in I do think my amendment is important, however, and relation to that fundamental principle. However, I have I am grateful that the Minister is prepared to look at it a question for him. He fears that my amendments open in a positive light, because, assuming the amendment of up the possibility of Members being held to account for my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park fails, things that they say in the Chamber, but surely that is and assuming the Government’s Bill goes through much even truer of the Bill. Plenty of Members have been as it is now, I think we will want it on the face of the sanctioned, thrown out of the House and suspended for Act, for the absolute avoidance of doubt, that no recall considerable periods as a result of things that they have procedure can be initiated on the basis of what we say in said and done in the Chamber. The Government’s this place or how we vote in this place. Somebody could programme would, at that stage, require a petition to be say something that is so outrageous—it might be racist signed by only 10% of their constituents for them to be or it might be the sort of comments the hon. Member thrown out altogether. They would cease to be Members for Bradford West makes from the far left—and that of Parliament. Yes, they might be able to fight back in a goes so much against popular opinion that, strangely by-election, but they would be thrown out of their jobs. enough, the Privileges Committee might start initiating That is surely a greater threat to the principles that the this procedure. I know we think that is unlikely. I am hon. Gentleman is guarding. talking about a belt-and-braces procedure, but I just want to be absolutely certain that we defend our ancient The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood): Order. That privileges. intervention was too long. We must remember that these are not privileges for us. These are not our privileges; they are the privileges Zac Goldsmith: I apologise, Mr Hood. of the people who demand that we have free speech here. Sir Edward Leigh: To be honest, I do not really understand that intervention. I have mentioned the hon. Member for Bradford West, Tam Dalyell and Ian Stephen Pound: I appreciate the historical information Paisley, and I have done some research on which Members we have got in this debate, which will certainly mean we have been thrown out for expressing their opinions. are better educated at the end of the evening, but on the Since the Bill of Rights, the only one to be thrown out subject of Parliament exercising its own rights in terms has been John Wilkes, Before the Bill of Rights—this is of outrage, may I remind the hon. Gentleman—not quite important; people have always felt this to be a that he needs reminding—of Charles Bradlaugh, who crucial part of the liberties of this country—it was quite was a perfidious atheist representing the then borough common to throw Members out. For instance, one of Northampton, and who was returned here four Member was thrown out for inventing orders from , and the House dealt with it? It refused to allow Duke of York to down sail, which prevented England him to take his seat on four occasions, and then decided, from capitalising on its naval victory off Lowestoft in “Why not?” and let him in. It was dealt with in-house. 1665. Another Member, Edward Sackville, was thrown out because he denounced Titus Oates as a “lying Sir Edward Leigh: It was dealt with in-house. He was rogue” and he disbelieved in the Popish plot. Another a great man. He argued his case. He came here four one was thrown out for associating with the Duke of times and finally, sensibly, we bowed to modern reality York in alleged complicity in the meal tub plot, and so it and we let him in. goes on. So it was actually very common to throw Before I sit down, I shall give another historical people out for expressing opinions that the Executive example that shows how generous we have been. Arthur did not like. Alfred Lynch was an Irish nationalist MP for Galway city. He was tried and convicted for high treason. Jacob Rees-Mogg: The early examples of people being He fought on the Boer side during the South African thrown out were not necessarily because they offended war; he fought against us. He was sentenced to death, the Executive, but often because they offended the but it was commuted to life, and he was pardoned in House. The Popish plot was not popular with 1907. As an astounding testament of our legacy of the Executive—they were reluctant to believe it—but clemency and tolerance in this country, he was readmitted the House of Commons was obsessed by it. to the House in 1909 when West Clare returned him to 125 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 126

Parliament. Indeed, the King even commissioned him a objectively as possible. As my hon. Friend has just said, colonel in the Royal Munster Fusiliers during the great my amendment (a) is to new clause 2, so if new clauses 1 war. and 2 fail, my amendment obviously falls. I have some I am sorry to give these historical examples, but they sympathy with those amendments, although nothing just show how extraordinarily generous we have been to like enough to make me support them as they stand. people who honestly disagreed with us, and even fought My hon. Friend—he is a friend—the Member for against us in a war, but then were returned by their Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) deserves credit for constituents. We said, “Yes, all right, you have made trying to find a way forward beyond the way the Bill your point, but you are an honourable man so we’ll let goes, but nothing like as far as my hon. Friend the you in.” Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) has gone. I am slightly in conflict with my hon. Friend the Member Dr Huppert: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) because, despite his brilliant historical exposition of the freedoms we Sir Edward Leigh: One last time and then I must sit have in this House, I think the time has come when we down to let others in. have to recognise that the public do not trust us to manage our own affairs. We have accepted that in Dr Huppert: It is a pleasure to hear the hon. Gentleman respect of allowances, although I will not go down that praise Charles Bradlaugh, a notable atheist, but he has road. We are not all particularly thrilled with what we not quite addressed the point that was made earlier. have, but never mind: we have accepted it. I think we What would happen with cash for questions, for example, probably have to accept it in this context, as well, but in where an essential factor is the question in this House? nothing like as wide open a way as the amendments How would his amendment deal with that? tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park and others suggest. As I say, I pay tribute to my 9pm hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome, and I was really pleased that the Government intimated that Sir Edward Leigh: The Minister dealt precisely with they will look at his proposals. that point, and I am quite prepared to engage in discussions with the Government. I do not want to defend somebody I want briefly to explain why I wanted to table this who puts down questions for cash. That was not the amendment. If the Committee is minded to support my purpose of my amendment. In fact, the hon. Member hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, it is for Somerton and Frome came up to me at one point crucially important that we narrow down the field to and said, “If you inserted the word ‘properly’ in the which recall could be applied. I know that he and others middle of the amendment to make sure you were acting take a different view—that the field should be wide in a proper fashion, and you were just expressing a open and we should entirely trust our constituents in point of view that this procedure should not be started, that regard—but as many Members have said this evening, we could resolve the issue.” So I am sure we can deal I seriously wonder whether we are creating a problem with this point. unnecessarily, and an opportunity for large pressure groups, probably backed with big money, to make a big My right hon. Friend the Member for South East impression on this House and to counter and influence Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) has a very similar the way in which Members vote. amendment that would kick in if that of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park is passed, so we The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), are working in tandem on this. If the latter amendment who is no longer in the Chamber, cited his experiences, is passed—I do not want to speak for my right hon. and the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) Friend, who can speak for himself—I urge Members on referred to when he was a Croydon Member—there both sides of the House to think carefully about my seems to be a history of Labour Members representing right hon. Friend’s amendment. It would make it clear Croydon marginals for short periods—with a majority that, although we had accepted the point of view of my of 81. Fortunately, I have not been in that position, but hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park that the I fully understand why people with such a majority may process should be taken out of our hands entirely, this feel pressurised about how they vote. This is not a party whole recall procedure could not be started just on the issue, and I am delighted that Conservative Members basis of how one speaks and votes. If, as I suspect from have a free vote, as is only right and proper. the speeches we have heard, we reject my hon. Friend’s amendment, I hope the Government will look kindly on Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con): My right hon. my amendment so we can include it in the Bill and Friend talks about Members who, like me, represent clearly preserve the freedom and liberties of this House, marginal seats. We must be careful that we do not give which we value so highly. the public the completely wrong impression that we are not going for this idea because we are running scared of Sir James Paice: When my hon. Friend the Member being destabilised in such seats. for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said that I can speak for myself, I was beginning to doubt whether I Sir James Paice: I note what my hon. Friend says, but was going to get the opportunity, particularly as it is I would not be prepared to say that, if I had a majority probably a couple of hours since the Minister replied to in the order of 100, I would not be very concerned the speech that I had not then given. about what people thought about me. I am concerned I should start by pointing out that I am speaking with anyway, but at least, for the reasons that my hon. Friend complete independence, because whatever happens to the Member for Gainsborough set out, I am able to the Bill, it will not apply to me as I am not seeking stand here and say whatever I like in the knowledge that re-election. I am therefore looking at it, I hope, as I am protected by privilege. I would not wish to abuse 127 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 128

[Sir James Paice] I think that there is that risk, and I want to protect hon. Members from it. My amendment would prevent anybody that privilege—I do not think that I have ever sought to giving as a reason for recall anything that fell under do so—but if what a Member said could be held against freedom of expression. My hon. Friend the Member for them, as might be the case if the amendments are Gainsborough has tabled a similar amendment, but I agreed to, we could jeopardise their opportunity to will not repeat what he has said. speak with the freedoms that we rightly pride in this Having been a Member for more years than I care to place. remember, I fear that the idealistic way in which the Like other Members, I have looked up a couple of amendments have been cast means that they are just too statistics. Only 207 hon. Members—less than a third— broad. As I said at the outset of my comments, I fully received over 50% of the vote. Indeed, 100 Members accept the need to go further than the Government are received the votes of less than 25% of their electorate, going, and I think that there is a need for popular which demonstrates just how tight things really are. We involvement, but it has to concentrate on the real issues can imagine the opportunity for well organised and that cause the public concern: unacceptable behaviour probably well funded pressure groups to exert influence by their Member of Parliament that devalues their role. on Members with a small proportion of the vote—just We all agree that that is necessary. The issue is whether enough to have scraped home—through the threat of we extend that to matters relating to freedom of speech, recall. It is easy for Members to say, as some have, “I am which I think would be a step too far. far too strong-minded and I will not be bought,” but I challenge that. It would be a brave individual who faced Crispin Blunt: I am delighted to have the opportunity such pressure yet did not feel that they might have to to speak at the end of the debate, presumably before my bend to it. hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac I will not add to what we have heard about vexatious Goldsmith) responds. It has been a really excellent cases, but those of us who have been here for a number debate. However, we need to remember where the Bill, of years know that all Governments, of all complexions, and the amendments that have been tabled, come from. become very unpopular at sometime during their mid- They arrived in all the parties’ manifestos in 2010 as a term—some are unpopular for the whole term—yet response to the expenses disaster. All of us who lived despite that, they quite often get re-elected. However, through that know how debilitating it was and understand during that mid-term period of unpopularity, it would the enormous damage it did to the reputation of this be possible to have a series of recalls in tight marginal place. seats simply to change incumbency, and that could end We have here a collapse of institutional self-confidence. up changing the Government. I do not have a problem With regard to how we can regulate ourselves and with a change of Government between general elections— prostrate ourselves in front of our electorate, almost that is democracy—but it would be wrong if that were nothing is good enough in addressing that lack of to arise because of a concerted effort targeted at specific confidence and trying to regain some of our reputation MPs on the basis of things that they had said or votes with the electorate. I suggest that the proposition coming they had cast. That was why I tabled amendment (a) to from the Government, in the form of the Bill, and the new clause 2, which would protect Members by not amendments proposed to it are a continuation of that. allowing reasons relating to their freedom of expression As an institution, we are like a whipped dog that is from being cited in a statement of reason. simply cowering ever lower. In response to the speech I had not then given, the Counter-intuitively, I think that it is about time we Minister said that my suggestion would work only to a started making the case for this institution and for how certain extent, because it would not stop such issues it works, as political parties that are here to support an being raised as part of a general campaign. However, if Administration that is able to put through a credible those issues could not be cited as reasons for seeking a programme of government for four or five years—now recall petition, that might be enough to stop a campaign five years, by statute—and to govern effectively in the from starting, as other reasons would need to be cited in interests of the country. the statement. It is perfectly true that there could be other mechanisms for publishing the real reason, which My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire is how the Member had spoken or voted, but I think (Nadine Dorries) put the populist case absolutely that preventing that being promulgated as the official wonderfully in her brilliant polemic, but I am afraid reason that goes out with the petition would offer that a rather difficult practical case must be put in considerable protection. opposition to it. If we all took her principled view about our duties in this place, we would not have an If there is a better way of doing that, obviously I, like Administration for four or five years who were capable other Members who have proposed amendments, would of putting together a coherent programme of government be happy to listen to it. However, if the Committee is and addressing the issues of the country over the lifetime minded to support new clause 2—as I have said, I could of a Parliament. I know that she does not like the not possibly support it unless my amendment (a) is Whips Office—I served in the Opposition Whips Office accepted by its proposers—I would have to oppose the for about five years, so in that sense I am guilty as whole raft of amendments standing in the name of my charged—but, as Enoch Powell said, Whips are the hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park and other sewers of the system; they are absolutely essential to the hon. Members. general health of the entire system. She criticises her If we stopped people on the street and asked them colleagues for doing “grubby deals” on this and that, about recall, most would say—if it registered at all—that but that is what we have to do in order to build a it relates to misconduct and bad behaviour. Very few coalition either within a political party or between would relate it to votes, speeches or views. Nevertheless, political parties to deliver coherent government. 129 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 130

9.15 pm proposals by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond I have given the example of the necessity that Liberal Park are frankly dangerous. I absolutely agree with my Democrat Members faced to jettison one of their right hon. Friend the Member for South East undertakings to the electorate at the election in order to Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) and my hon. Friend put together a coherent programme of government for the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) the coalition. They did that honourably, and it has done about the dangers that they open up. Those arguments them immense damage. They will hope that during this were also made by the hon. Member for North Durham five-year period that decision will be vindicated by the (Mr Jones). fact that they can share some of the credit for the economic recovery that the country has undergone. Mr Lansley: I put it to my hon. Friend that there is a Under my hon. Friend’s system, or under the proposals gap in the regulation, which the Bill is intended to fill. by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, When the public see instances of gross misconduct they would not be in that position—they would be open that result in either a court sentence or a substantial to recall. period of suspension from this House, they say that in any other normal profession people would lose Nadine Dorries: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for their jobs under such circumstances. This Bill puts giving way, because not giving way is the maxim by Members in that position when it might not have happened which I live my life. I totally understand his point about otherwise. the coalition. However, it has been reported tonight that the Prime Minister and the Chief Whip will not be Crispin Blunt: Do we have an actual problem or a voting for these amendments because the Liberal Democrats perception of a problem that does not actually exist? In have asked them not to. How does that benefit government? practice, we do not have a problem. If a Member is How is that principled? sentenced to imprisonment for a period of less than a year, it is highly likely that they will choose to stand Crispin Blunt: I have absolutely no idea. The Prime down, as has happened. Equally, the same thing is likely Minister is trying to run a coalition. He has to keep if Members receive a sentence from the Standards and within this coalition our colleagues who are helping us Privileges Committee, as happened with our former to govern and delivering a majority in voting for taxes colleague Patrick Mercer, who decided to stand down. that make for some form of fiscally sensible arrangement. There is not a practical issue that we are trying to Of course there are going to be grubby deals—they have address. I accept there is a perception issue, but we have to be done. My hon. Friend has possibly given an to work out the right way to address it. example, although I have no idea of whether what she The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) says is accurate. made a further practical argument against the measures The proposals by my hon. Friend the Member for proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Richmond Park open us up to the possibility of being Park. When I lost the executive vote on my reselection, subject to recall all the time. That would make it immensely the issue was put to a simple vote of the members of the more difficult to support a Government in maintaining Conservative party in Reigate, but take it from me: that a coherent programme. There is a reason why Governments occupied most of my attention for the two months it do the difficult things in the first few years of the took to complete the ballot. I won by a margin of five to Parliament: it is because they know they are going to be one, but the process was something of a modest distraction unpopular. from my other work representing my constituents. The Part of my hon. Friend’s argument was to say, “The hon. Member for Swansea West made an absolutely key thing here is about public confidence.” I accept that valid point: the suggested process would be the most there is a lack of public confidence in this institution; enormous distraction from the duties we are actually that is why the Government have finally got round to heretodo. proposing this measure. However, we must ask ourselves As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough whether that will be addressed by our cowering yet has said, are we not already subject to recall? Every five lower in the face of it, or whether we should get off our years we have to face the electorate in a general election. knees, have some institutional self-confidence, and make the case that we are, in fact, regulated to an Mr MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number enormous extent as Members of Parliament. We have of points, but his speech is dominated by the idea that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the there is a battle between parliamentarians and the voters. Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, the He has questioned whether there are problems, but of criminal law—which, if we are convicted, will result in course there must be problems if standards bodies such our being thrown out—the Standards and Privileges as the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority Committee, the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, have been set up. Perhaps those sticking plasters have and all the rest. An enormous number of bodies now been set up because adequate mechanisms have not oversee this place and our behaviour. been available to the electorate to get a hold of Members The question is whether this Bill is trying to address a of Parliament and bring them to account in good time. real, practical problem about our behaviour, individually That is all hidden under the blanket of the general or collectively. The answer, I suggest, is no. Is there a election. That is why we are having this debate. This is reputational issue? Of course there is, and we have to revolutionary democracy. The cat is out of the bag. If work out the right solution to that. The Government’s this does not happen now, proper recall will come at proposals, which try to find a limited way of doing some point. It always happens. The elites, the powerful something to create the principle of recall, are not right and the parliamentarians of Westminster will always and do not address the issue practically, while the rail against it, but in the end they will have to yield. 131 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 132

Crispin Blunt: I say in all candour that we need to pay relations, and the public relations tricks are dealt with attention to how we are going to stand up for Parliament better by the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the as an institution, because things are changing out there. Member for Richmond Park than by the Government’s There are now very strong single-issue lobbies that were Bill. not there before, and new electronic media give them a Institutionally, we now need to make the case for this way to come together quickly and run very strong institution. It is wrong to address an issue of perception campaigns. through legislation. We should make a case—the kind The problem we face is the collapse of interest in of case brilliantly made by my hon. Friend the Member political parties. All the political parties are suffering for Gainsborough—about what a representative democracy from a diminution in membership. is about in principle. That is changing in this environment of much greater popular engagement. The problem we Mr MacNeil: Not at all—we’ve just trebled our face is that we must, at the same time, produce coherent membership! administration. We have to support a Government who have a programme and will vote the taxes and do the Crispin Blunt: I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman’s intervention unpopular things required to administer this country on my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot effectively. If we give in to the kind of populist pressure (Anne Marie Morris). He told her that the thing that coming from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid would stop endless petitions against individuals who Bedfordshire or my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond were then targeted by particular lobbies was failure. I Park, who spoke in a very principled way, we will create look forward to hearing about the dissolution of the for ourselves a practical problem about what we are Scottish National party after its failure in the referendum here to do, which is to ensure the sound administration on independence. The party has failed, so is that it? Is of the United Kingdom. the SNP going away and packing up its tents? I rather suspect not, and we can expect the same of single-issue Zac Goldsmith: Does my hon. Friend not agree that campaigns, which will target Members—particularly more or less every 30 or so years since the first Reform those who are brave enough to stand up for unpopular Act of 1832, the franchise has been expanded and causes—and continue to be on their tail, if we agree to democracy has been updated to adjust to social changes. the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond That happened right up to 1969, but since then the Park. world has changed beyond recognition for the reasons he has eloquently described, not least the internet, Money is also an issue, as the hon. Member for social media and so on. Does he not accept that there is North Durham has said. My campaign to get reselected a need for democracy to be updated again, or have we was targeted at about 500 Conservatives in Reigate. reached ground zero in the political history of democracy That campaign had minimal costs, but I then had to say in this country? thank you to all the people who campaigned for me and so on, and the cost of that non-campaign headed into four figures. Hon. Members should imagine having to Crispin Blunt: We have a practical problem about campaign in their constituency. If they were standing how we adapt as an institution—both the Government, up for an unpopular cause and their party did not roll and Parliament in holding the Government to account— in behind them—the hon. Member for Hayes and and about how we as elected representatives manage it. Harlington (John McDonnell) gently predicted that his Of course the temptation is to begin to go down the party might not be too keen to rally to his aid—they road of constant referendums or opinion polls by e-mail, would be very exposed by recall. Some of us do not but that does not put together a coherent programme have the resources to fight such campaigns. for Government. That is the issue we must address, and I do not think that the Bill or my hon. Friend’s amendments will do the job. Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): I feel that my hon. Friend is creating an Aunt Sally that does not exist. As I understand it, the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op): the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) require My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West 20,000 people to go to a town hall to vote for a recall. Fife (Thomas Docherty) spoke to set out our case for That is very unlikely, even with outside organisations our amendments and to respond to those tabled by the trying to stir things up. hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and others. In my speech, I will focus on the cross-party amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton Crispin Blunt: That was the superficial attraction of and Frome (Mr Heath) and others. the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park. I thought that I might even vote for I want to restate the fact that Labour supports the them because they at least to some extent made the principle of recall. It was in our manifesto, which the public relations purpose of the Bill more effective by Minister quoted: meeting the challenge of involving the public in this “MPs who are found responsible for financial misconduct will exercise. The superficial attraction of his argument was be subject to a right of recall if Parliament itself has failed to act the one expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for against them.” Harlow (Robert Halfon), which is that recall will not Against that test, our view is that the Bill is not strong happen away, because no one will be able to clear this enough. That is why we tabled the amendments that my hurdle. It has hardly ever happened in the United hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West States, and we have made it so difficult to achieve that Fife set out on lowering the suspension limits that recall will not do anything in practice. We therefore might trigger recall and adding additional conditions, need not worry because this is simply about public including on conviction for financial misconduct. 133 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 134

9.30 pm for the Member of Parliament to have his or her case Clearly, we need to strike a careful balance between heard, or is it enough for a judge to find that there is a allowing our constituents to recall their Member of case to be heard and for the public then to be consulted? Parliament if they are guilty of serious wrongdoing and Alternative bars could be set, such as whether the designing a system that might, however inadvertently, election court is sure beyond reasonable doubt that the allow powerful vested interests to take action against Member of Parliament is guilty of misconduct. MPs simply because they disagree with our views or A significant refinement of the amendments is needed. dislike our politics. That would risk hampering our In principle, giving the power to the people to bring a democracy. case against their MP before the election court is a good It is for that reason that we are drawn to the amendments idea. It treads the fine line between undermining an tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, MP’s constitutional role and giving power to the people which would provide a public trigger for recall. He to hold their Member of Parliament to account for his made a powerful and persuasive case for such an approach or her conduct. Labour Members will work with the and admitted openly and candidly that further work cross-party group of MPs who have proposed these needs to be done on the detail. Amendments 42 and 43 amendments to attempt to ensure that we can make and new clauses 6 and 7 provide for a form recall that is them workable, and we look forward to returning to the independent of any parliamentary Committee. It would matter on Report. As a result, we will not be pressing allow direct access to a petition for the public, but any of our amendments to a vote, and I urge other would allow recall only in cases of misconduct. Importantly, Members not to press their amendments to a vote it seeks to avoid MPs adjudicating on the behaviour of today. other MPs or, as the Minister put it, MPs marking our own homework. Mr Gyimah: This has been a good, if long, debate, The amendments of the hon. Member for Somerton and after four and a half hours of Committee we are and Frome would allow a recall process to be triggered still very much on clause 1. As the Minister of State, if 100 electors petitioned an election court and the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for court was satisfied that there was prima facie evidence Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) said, the Bill faithfully that the MP had a case to answer in respect of the implements the commitment given at the last election to criminal offence of misconduct in public office. Our introducing recall for MPs for misconduct. Some colleagues view is that the proposal for an election court as a believe that is unnecessary and that the House—and trigger of recall is a serious proposal that merits further courts—already have sufficient sanctions. Others believe consideration. Work needs to be done to refine the that what was promised should not have been promised, amendments between now and Report stage. I will give and that constituents should be able to trigger a recall a couple of examples of how. of their MP for any reason at any time. Faced with In new clause 6, the third recall condition would those two alternatives, I think the Bill deserves support. allow just 100 people to bring a petition to an election It does what we said we would do, while safeguarding court. That is significantly lower than any of the thresholds the right of MPs to speak freely without imperilling proposed in the Bill or in the amendments of the hon. their position in this House before the verdict of their Member for Richmond Park. We need to consider constituents at a general election. whether the bar of 100 petitioners is too low. Is there As I summarise the points raised, I would like to get not a risk that the courts would be clogged up with away from the distinction that some Members have unlikely recall petitions? A possible change would be to tried to draw between bogus and real recall. As my right add an earlier stage during which a court, on the basis hon. Friend the Minister made clear, the Government of the papers, could filter out petitions that would be have committed to considering how a number of the highly unlikely to succeed before deciding whether to amendments can be reflected in the drafting of the Bill, hear the cases. including a means for constituents to trigger a route for We believe that we need to consider the definition of recall from proven misconduct, and the link with convictions “misconduct”. The hon. Member for Somerton and under the parliamentary expenses system. Those are all Frome spoke about that himself. In new clause 7, the constructive ways of dealing with the shared desire court is asked to consider the common law offence of across the House to make this a Recall Bill that is robust misconduct in public office. In addition, it states that and commands the confidence of the electorate. “gross dereliction of duty as an MP may be considered misconduct Let me turn to some of the speeches made today. My in public office.” hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac The offence in common law is defined as a public office Goldsmith) spoke passionately—as he is known to do holder wilfully neglecting to perform their duty or on these matters—and touched on the threshold, cost committing misconduct to such a degree as to abuse the controls and the fear of endless harassment. public’s trust in that office holder. I suggest that we should consider on Report whether that is clear and Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con): correct. Does the court need further clarification? Will the Minister clarify whether a threshold could be Alternatively, could we use the code of conduct for dovetailed on to another election—for example the Members of Parliament as the basis for the work of the Scottish referendum or a European election—as a way election court? of distorting the achievements of that threshold, or The hon. Gentleman’s amendments allow for a recall whether it would need to be secured on a separate date? petition without a conviction. As they stand, the MP need not be guilty of any offence. It is only that a prima Mr Gyimah: I think the answer is that a threshold facie case must be answered. Do we not want an opportunity could be on any date. 135 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 136

[Mr Gyimah] My right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) made an empathetic speech My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park said about Members who have very small majorities. He was that the threshold, cost controls and endless harassment very honest in saying that, with the size of his majority, were technical issues that we could deal with quite he could afford to take some unpopular positions without easily. As we learned in Committee, however, such issues worrying about going back to his constituency one are germane to his recall proposal, and therefore to his weekend to find a notice of a petition against him on a argument. 5% threshold, and that his constituents had begun Several Members made the point that not only was proceedings to get rid of him. the threshold of 5% for the initial stage of recall too My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate made the low, but it could be requested again and again, meaning passionate case that the House of Commons suffers that a Member could face several notices of recall from a collapse of institutional self-confidence—it was during a Parliament. While those notices of recall may the kind of case that Sir Humphrey might describe as not be successful in themselves, as the hon. Member for “very brave”. He said that MPs must make the case for North Durham (Mr Jones) pointed out, the sheer fact the status quo without responding to the public’s desire that a Member could face recall on any issue at any time for a mechanism to bring MPs to account when there is again and again could serve to stop them performing serious wrongdoing, which the Government and all the their duties—apart from the fact that dealing with a main parties recognise. recall could be a complete nuisance. The hon. Gentleman also touched on cost controls, Crispin Blunt: I can see from my Twitter feed that my and something my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond courage is already a matter of comment, but my question Park did not explore in great detail is the point that to the Minister is this: are MPs not already held to before the notice of petition is given under his scheme account? He implies that we are not, but we are massively of recall, a lot of money could be spent that is not held to account by any number of different bodies. recorded anywhere at all, in order to destabilise an MP and make it difficult for them to fight the recall when it Mr Gyimah: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say happens. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi that oversight is exercised over MPs and that MPs are Long) noted that compared with the main parties, held to account in a number of ways, but there is a gap minor parties do not have the funds to fight even one within the existing framework, namely the opportunity recall petition, and the same applies to Independent for constituents to get rid of an MP in a case of serious MPs. Cost control is not a simple, technical issue, but is wrongdoing. Currently, the Representation of the People central to the argument for full recall and something Act 1981 allows an MP to be automatically disqualified that I do not believe has been addressed today. if they are convicted and sentenced to a period of more than a year. However, if the period is less than a year, My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park the MP can decide to stay in post. The Bill gives the spoke of MPs in the context of their role as legislators. public a route at that point to get rid of the MP.The Act MPs are not just legislators; some are members of the does not allow an MP who is given a suspended custodial Executive. How will the Minister for planning, the sentence for any period to be disqualified from the Minister for fracking, the Minister for benefit reform or House. The Bill fills that gap. The Mental Health Act the Minister for austerity deal with a situation in which 1983 provides for disqualification if an MP is imprisoned recall can be initiated against them on a 5% threshold? or sentenced under the mental health provisions for In other words, it would be almost impossible for certain more than a year, but if the term is under a year the MP MPs—[Interruption.] remains in post.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing): Order. The Minister will be heard. 9.45 pm The Bill seeks to address those significant gaps in the framework while maintaining the balance between dealing Mr Gyimah: It would be very difficult for certain with wrongdoing and an MP’s ability to speak their Members, especially those with relatively small majorities, mind. either to serve in the Executive or to take the unpopular decisions that Governments must take. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) said, to Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): govern is to choose. As I understand the Bill, it proposes that in the event of a custodial sentence of less than 12 months the recall The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) mechanism can be triggered. Many offences are punished came up with an interesting mechanism to deal with not by custodial sentences but by serious community wrongdoing and giving the public a say. As my right penalties. Why have the Government taken the view hon. Friend the Minister said, we will consider that that offences punished by such sentences should not interesting idea on Report. trigger the ability to recall the Member? My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) demonstrated why is he is such a Mr Gyimah: I must correct my hon. and learned valued Member of the House. He expounded on why Friend on a point of detail. Recall would—not can—be our history is important, but why we cannot dismiss triggered if a Member received a custodial sentence of what the House stands for, and the privilege of an MP less than 12 months. What drives the Government’s to speak and take unpopular positions. At the same recall process is the level of seriousness. So, for example, time, we must deal with the needs of our electorates and a fine for non-payment of the television licence is not in respond to their concern about wrongdoing. the same category as serious assault or theft. However, 137 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 138 a community sentence that brought the House into House tends not to favour retrospectivity. In general, disrepute or for conduct in breach of the Members code the courts impose punishment for offences that are of conduct could trigger the second recall petition current, so I urge the withdrawal of those two amendments. under which the Member may be suspended for 21 days Amendment 46 covers historic offences which, although at the recommendation of the Standards Committee. committed at the time of the MP’s election, are not That could result in recall and a by-election if the 10% known to the electorate at the time. This makes an threshold was reached. important point on the electorate’s ability to judge a Member’s misconduct and we will return to the amendment Stephen Phillips: The Minister is right: that could on Report. Amendment 47 deals with criminal abuse of trigger the Standards Committee to act, but it might the expenses system, which would lead to judgment not. Is not the difficulty that it looks again as though before constituents as well as the court. There is a the House is seeking to regulate itself rather than hand technical deficiency in the way the amendment is currently power to our constituents? drafted, but we will reflect on this matter and return to it on Report. [Interruption.] Mr Gyimah: We are looking at the operation of the Standards Committee and how it can be strengthened, The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means as the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. (Mrs Eleanor Laing): Order. The Committee should be Member for Tunbridge Wells said earlier. I assure my listening to the Minister. If Members wish to chat they hon. and learned Friend that, even under the current can go elsewhere. terms of the Bill, if a Member is reported to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, it would Mr Gyimah: In summary, we are dealing with two have to investigate. If the Member has breached the different conceptions of recall. The Government believe code of conduct, the Standards Committee can make a that recall should be on the basis of serious wrongdoing recommendation to the House of a suspension for and conduct and not on causes supported. 21 days, and that could trigger a recall petition. So a Member receiving a non-custodial sentence could still Mr MacNeil: Is it not the reality that, after manifesto face recall. promises, a mealy-mouthed recall Bill will be considered Amendment 1 deals with the point that recall could with disdain by the public, and will set the reputation of be triggered over and over again. New clause 2 concerns Westminster even lower? the 200-word statement by the promoter of the recall petition. That makes sense if someone brings a recall Mr Gyimah: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point petition against a Member under the scheme proposed that we have to respond to the real need, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park—they post-expenses crisis, to allow the public to kick MPs out should be able to put their accusations on paper and the after wrongdoing, but we have to do that in a way that is Member should have the right of reply—but it risks consistent with our democratic arrangements. We have accusations that are unfounded getting into the public a parliamentary democracy in which the legislature is domain and being given credence because they have fused with the Executive. The three other countries been distributed by the local authority. Damage to the similar to us, New Zealand, Australia and Canada, do Member’s reputation could be done just by allowing not have recall. A lot has been made of the United people to promote their reasons for recall. States of America, which has recall but, as the hon. Member for North Durham pointed out, it is often used Steve Baker: The point was made earlier in the debate there for politically motivated reasons. We wish to that leaflets seek to undermine our reputations in every respond to the need for the public to be able to get rid of general election. What is the difference? their MPs, but the Government want to do so in a way that is consistent with our democratic arrangements Mr Gyimah: The leaflets that are put out at the while preserving some of the best aspects of our system, general election are not paid for from the public purse, for example MPs being able to speak their mind and nor are they distributed by the local authority. In this campaign for unpopular causes. context, the leaflet would be drafted by a member of the My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, he public, paid for by the taxpayer and distributed by the argues that recall will be very rare under his scheme, local authority, which could be seen to endorse those while giving people real power. He has to decide whether views. That could damage someone’s reputation. his recall mechanism will give real power and be effective Amendments 42, 43, 44, new clause 6 and new clause in getting rid of any MP the public want to get rid of, or 7 deal with the cross-party amendment and focus recall that it is rare and therefore not effective. It sounds to me on misconduct. As I said, we will consider that in detail. like his argument tries to have it both ways and that is Amendment (a) to new clause 2, tabled by my right hon. not the way that recall should work. If we are to have a Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire recall system, it should be one that the public can trust (Mr Paice), focuses recall on causes not conduct. As and understand. They should know that when they tabled, it would not stop people campaigning for recall engage in it, it will end in a Member being booted out of and would not act as a safeguard to Members’ free this House if need be. expression. We therefore urge him to withdraw his The four-stage recall mechanism proposed by my amendment. hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park starts with Amendments 34, 6, 7, 10, 35, 12 to 18, 20, 21, 36, 37, a 5% threshold and then moves to a 20% threshold, 8 and 9 are consequential amendments on the recall then a 50% threshold and then a by-election. I would process and so are not worth touching on in detail now. hazard a guess that constituents would be fed up by the Amendments 39 and 40 deal with retrospectivity. The end of it. Someone who signed the notice of petition at 139 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 140

[Mr Gyimah] Hosie, Stewart Percy, Andrew Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy Phillips, Stephen the first stage would think, “I thought I’d got rid of that Jenkin, Mr Bernard Pincher, Christopher MP five months ago”, but the process would still be Jones, rh Mr David Raab, Mr Dominic ongoing. On the other hand, the Government’s proposal Jones, Mr Marcus Randall, rh Sir John would be as speedy as possible. I therefore urge Members Kawczynski, Daniel Redwood, rh Mr John Kelly, Chris Reed, Mr Jamie to reject the amendment and the following consequential Kirby, Simon Rees-Mogg, Jacob amendments. Knight, rh Sir Greg Ritchie, Ms Margaret Kwarteng, Kwasi Robertson, Angus Zac Goldsmith: The technical concerns—thresholds, Lammy, rh Mr David Ruffley, Mr David costs, frequency—can and will be dealt with on Report Lancaster, Mark Sheerman, Mr Barry and should not be an excuse to reject the amendments Latham, Pauline Skidmore, Chris as a whole. At stake is a matter of principle. Do we trust Lee, Jessica Smith, Henry our voters to hold us to account? The public today are Lefroy, Jeremy Spencer, Mr Mark better informed, better educated and less deferential Leslie, Charlotte Stephenson, Andrew than at any time in our history, and recall is not radical, Lewis, Brandon Stewart, Bob but merely a nod to those changes that would be used Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn Straw, rh Mr Jack rarely and only in extremes. It might even be described Loughton, Tim Streeter, Mr Gary as a gesture, but that does not make it a trivial matter; Lucas, Caroline Stuart, Mr Graham Lumley, Karen Sturdy, Julian sometimes a gesture is the most important thing—a MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan Swayne, rh Mr Desmond signal from one party to another that starts the process Mactaggart, Fiona Tomlinson, Justin of healing and reconciliation. I fear that if we play Main, Mrs Anne Truss, rh Elizabeth games, constructing a bogus alternative to recall, voters Mann, John Turner, Mr Andrew will see through it and, sooner or later, begin seeking Maude, rh Mr Francis Uppal, Paul more drastic solutions. I therefore press the amendment Maynard, Paul Vickers, Martin to a vote. McCarthy, Kerry Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa Question put, That the amendment be made. McCartney, Jason Walley, Joan McDonnell, John Weir, Mr Mike The Committee divided: Ayes 166, Noes 340. McPartland, Stephen Wheeler, Heather Division No. 63] [9.56 pm McVey, rh Esther White, Chris Meacher, rh Mr Michael Whiteford, Dr Eilidh Metcalfe, Stephen Whitehead, Dr Alan AYES Mills, Nigel Whittaker, Craig Abbott, Ms Diane Cunningham, Mr Jim Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew Wiggin, Bill Adams, Nigel Davies, Glyn Mordaunt, Penny Williams, Hywel Afriyie, Adam Davies, Philip Morris, Anne Marie Williams, Mr Mark Anderson, Mr David Davis, rh Mr David Morris, Grahame M. Williams, Roger Andrew, Stuart de Bois, Nick (Easington) Wilson, Mr Rob Baker, Steve Dinenage, Caroline Morris, James Wishart, Pete Banks, Gordon Dorries, Nadine Mundell, rh David Wollaston, Dr Sarah Barclay, Stephen Dowd, Jim Murrison, Dr Andrew Wood, Mike Barron, rh Kevin Durkan, Mark Nokes, Caroline Wright, David Bayley, Hugh Edwards, Jonathan Nuttall, Mr David Wright, rh Jeremy Bebb, Guto Ellis, Michael O’Donnell, Fiona Begg, Dame Anne Elphicke, Charlie Owen, Albert Tellers for the Ayes: Benyon, Richard Engel, Natascha Pawsey, Mark Douglas Carswell and Bingham, Andrew Evans, Mr Nigel Pearce, Teresa Mr Peter Bone Blackman, Bob Fabricant, Michael Boles, Nick Farron, Tim Bottomley, Sir Peter Field, Mark NOES Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben Fitzpatrick, Jim Abrahams, Debbie Beresford, Sir Paul Bray, Angie Flynn, Paul Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob Berger, Luciana Bridgen, Andrew Fuller, Richard Aldous, Peter Berry, Jake Brine, Steve Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl Alexander, rh Mr Douglas Betts, Mr Clive Bryant, Chris Glen, John Alexander, Heidi Blackman-Woods, Roberta Buckland, Mr Robert Glindon, Mrs Mary Ali, Rushanara Blenkinsop, Tom Burrowes, Mr David Goldsmith, Zac Allen, Mr Graham Blomfield, Paul Burt, rh Alistair Green, rh Damian Arbuthnot, rh Mr James Blunkett, rh Mr David Byles, Dan Griffiths, Andrew Bacon, Mr Richard Blunt, Crispin Cairns, Alun Halfon, Robert Bailey, Mr Adrian Bradley, Karen Carmichael, Neil Hancock, Mr Mike Bain, Mr William Brady, Mr Graham Caton, Martin Harrington, Richard Baker, rh Norman Brake, rh Tom Champion, Sarah Harris, Rebecca Baldry, rh Sir Tony Brazier, Mr Julian Chapman, Jenny Hart, Simon Baldwin, Harriett Brennan, Kevin Clark, Katy Heaton-Harris, Chris Balls, rh Ed Brokenshire, James Coffey, Ann Henderson, Gordon Barker, rh Gregory Brooke, rh Annette Coffey, Dr Thérèse Hodge, rh Margaret Barwell, Gavin Brown, Lyn Corbyn, Jeremy Hoey, Kate Beckett, rh Margaret Brown, rh Mr Nicholas Creasy, Stella Hollobone, Mr Philip Beith, rh Sir Alan Brown, Mr Russell Crouch, Tracey Hopkins, Kelvin Benn, rh Hilary Browne, Mr Jeremy 141 Recall of MPs Bill27 OCTOBER 2014 Recall of MPs Bill 142

Bruce, Fiona Fullbrook, Lorraine Khan, rh Sadiq Reed, Mr Steve Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm Gapes, Mike Lamb, rh Norman Reevell, Simon Buck, Ms Karen Garnier, Sir Edward Lansley, rh Mr Andrew Reid, Mr Alan Burden, Richard Gauke, Mr David Lavery, Ian Reynolds, Emma Burley, Mr Aidan George, Andrew Lazarowicz, Mark Reynolds, Jonathan Burnham, rh Andy Gibb, Mr Nick Leech, Mr John Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm Burns, Conor Gilbert, Stephen Leigh, Sir Edward Riordan, Mrs Linda Burns, rh Mr Simon Gilmore, Sheila Leslie, Chris Robertson, rh Sir Hugh Burstow, rh Paul Glass, Pat Letwin, rh Mr Oliver Robertson, John Burt, Lorely Godsiff, Mr Roger Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma Robertson, Mr Laurence Byrne, rh Mr Liam Goodman, Helen Lidington, rh Mr David Robinson, Mr Geoffrey Cable, rh Vince Goodwill, Mr Robert Lilley, rh Mr Peter Rotheram, Steve Campbell, rh Mr Alan Graham, Richard Lloyd, Stephen Roy, Mr Frank Campbell, rh Sir Menzies Grant, Mrs Helen Long, Naomi Roy, Lindsay Campbell, Mr Ronnie Green, Kate Lopresti, Jack Ruane, Chris Champion, Sarah Greening, rh Justine Love, Mr Andrew Rudd, Amber Chishti, Rehman Greenwood, Lilian Luff, Sir Peter Ruddock, rh Dame Joan Clappison, Mr James Grieve, rh Mr Dominic Macleod, Mary Russell, Sir Bob Clark, rh Greg Griffith, Nia Mahmood, Mr Khalid Rutley, David Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth Gummer, Ben Malhotra, Seema Sanders, Mr Adrian Clarke, rh Mr Tom Gwynne, Andrew Marsden, Mr Gordon Sarwar, Anas Clwyd, rh Ann Gyimah, Mr Sam McCabe, Steve Scott, Mr Lee Coaker, Vernon Hague, rh Mr William McCann, Mr Michael Seabeck, Alison Collins, Damian Hain, rh Mr Peter McDonald, Andy Selous, Andrew Colvile, Oliver Hamilton, Mr David McFadden, rh Mr Pat Shannon, Jim Connarty, Michael Hamilton, Fabian McGovern, Jim Shapps, rh Grant Cooper, rh Yvette Hammond, rh Mr Philip McGuire, rh Mrs Anne Sharma, Alok Cox, Mr Geoffrey Hammond, Stephen McInnes, Liz Sharma, Mr Virendra Crabb, rh Stephen Hancock, rh Matthew McKenzie, Mr Iain Sheridan, Jim Cunningham, Alex Hands, rh Greg McKinnell, Catherine Shuker, Gavin Cunningham, Sir Tony Hanson, rh Mr David McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick Simmonds, Mark Curran, Margaret Harman, rh Ms Harriet Meale, Sir Alan Skinner, Mr Dennis Dakin, Nic Harper, Mr Mark Mearns, Ian Slaughter, Mr Andy Danczuk, Simon Harris, Mr Tom Miller, Andrew Smith, Angela David, Wayne Harvey, Sir Nick Miller, rh Maria Smith, Chloe Davidson, Mr Ian Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan Milton, Anne Smith, Julian Davies, David T. C. Havard, Mr Dai Moon, Mrs Madeleine Smith, Nick (Monmouth) Hayes, rh Mr John Moore, rh Michael Smith, Owen Davies, Geraint Heath, Mr David Morden, Jessica Smith, Sir Robert De Piero, Gloria Hemming, John Morgan, rh Nicky Soubry, Anna Djanogly, Mr Jonathan Hendry, Charles Morrice, Graeme (Livingston) Spellar, rh Mr John Dobson, rh Frank Hermon, Lady Morris, David Stewart, Iain Docherty, Thomas Heyes, David Mosley, Stephen Stride, Mel Donohoe, Mr Brian H. Hilling, Julie Mowat, David Stringer, Graham Doran, Mr Frank Hinds, Damian Mudie, Mr George Stuart, Ms Gisela Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen Hoban, Mr Mark Mulholland, Greg Stunell, rh Sir Andrew Doughty, Stephen Hodgson, Mrs Sharon Munt, Tessa Swire, rh Mr Hugo Doyle, Gemma Hopkins, Kris Murray, Sheryll Syms, Mr Robert Doyle-Price, Jackie Horwood, Martin Nandy, Lisa Tami, Mark Drax, Richard Howarth, rh Mr George Nash, Pamela Thomas, Mr Gareth Dromey, Jack Howarth, Sir Gerald Newton, Sarah Thornberry, Emily Duncan, rh Sir Alan Howell, John Norman, Jesse Thornton, Mike Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain Hughes, rh Simon O’Brien, rh Mr Stephen Thurso, rh John Dunne, Mr Philip Hunter, Mark Offord, Dr Matthew Timms, rh Stephen Eagle, Ms Angela Huppert, Dr Julian Onwurah, Chi Tredinnick, David Eagle, Maria Irranca-Davies, Huw Opperman, Guy Trickett, Jon Efford, Clive Jackson, Glenda Osborne, rh Mr George Turner, Karl Ellman, Mrs Louise Jackson, Mr Stewart Osborne, Sandra Twigg, Derek Ellwood, Mr Tobias James, Margot Ottaway, rh Sir Richard Twigg, Stephen Esterson, Bill James, Mrs Siân C. Paice, rh Sir James Vaizey, Mr Edward Evans, Chris Jamieson, Cathy Paisley, Ian Vara, Mr Shailesh Evans, Graham Jarvis, Dan Patel, Priti Vaz, Valerie Evans, Jonathan Jenrick, Robert Paterson, rh Mr Owen Walker, Mr Robin Evennett, Mr David Johnson, Joseph Penning, rh Mike Wallace, Mr Ben Fallon, rh Michael Jones, Andrew Penrose, John Walter, Mr Robert Farrelly, Paul Jones, Graham Perkins, Toby Ward, Mr David Flint, rh Caroline Jones, Helen Pickles, rh Mr Eric Watkinson, Dame Angela Foster, rh Mr Don Jones, Mr Kevan Poulter, Dr Daniel Watts, Mr Dave Fox,rhDrLiam Jones, Susan Elan Pound, Stephen Webb, rh Steve Francis, Dr Hywel Kane, Mike Prisk, Mr Mark Wharton, James Francois, rh Mr Mark Keeley, Barbara Pritchard, Mark Whittingdale, Mr John Freer, Mike Kendall, Liz Raynsford, rh Mr Nick Willetts, rh Mr David 143 Recall of MPs Bill 27 OCTOBER 2014 144

Williamson, Chris Woodward, rh Mr Shaun JTI Gallaher Williamson, Gavin Wright, Mr Iain Willott, Jenny Wright, Simon Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House Wilson, Phil Young, rh Sir George do now adjourn.—(Harriett Baldwin.) Wilson, Sammy Zahawi, Nadhim Winnick, Mr David Tellers for the Noes: Winterton, rh Ms Rosie Mr Andrew Robathan and 10.13 pm Woodcock, John Ian Swales Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): On 7 October, my constituency received the devastating news that a Question accordingly negatived. 150-year-old manufacturing industry was to be brought to an end. 10.12 pm JTI Gallaher employs 900 people in Ballymena. It Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 21 October). has existed in Northern Ireland since its foundation The Chair put forthwith the Question necessary for the 150 years ago in the city of Londonderry, and it has disposal of the business to be concluded at that time been a mainstay of employment in Northern Ireland. It (Standing Order No. 83D). has stood along with key industries such as linen-making, Clauses 1 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. textiles, rope-making and shipbuilding, and it has itself been part of one of the key industries in Northern The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report Ireland. In my constituency, it alone employs those progress and ask leave to sit again (Standing Order 900 people. It is regarded as one of the largest employers No. 9(3)). in the constituency, and, indeed, in Northern Ireland as The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair. a whole. Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow. Let me put this into a local perspective. In a country of 1.8 million people, that employer’s wage input into Business without Debate my local economy is £60 million, and it puts a further £100 million into the entire Northern Ireland economy through transport, packaging and other associated DELEGATED LEGISLATION industries. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), In philanthropic terms, the company supports—and indeed is the lifeblood support of—key charities, including Age UK, the Harryville partnership in Ballymena and HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS’FUND the Ulster orchestra. We are hearing much locally about That pursuant to section 4(4) of the House of Commons the future of the Ulster orchestra. Let us be absolutely Members’ Fund Act 1948 and section 1(4) of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1957, in the year commencing clear about this: without JTI Gallaher there would be 1 October 2014 there be appropriated for the purposes of section 4 no Ulster orchestra. of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1948: (1) The I want to put the 900 jobs into a UK-wide perspective. whole of the sums deducted or set aside in that year under If those jobs were lost here on the mainland of the section 1(3) of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1939 United Kingdom, it would be the equivalent of from the salaries of Members of the House of Commons; and (2) The whole of the Treasury contribution paid to the Fund.—(Harriett 32,000 people being told that their jobs are over. I Baldwin.) welcome the fact that we have a Minister at the Dispatch Box, but I have been totally underwhelmed by the Question agreed to. response of this Government to that blow to our economy. There has been no statement from that Dispatch Box about it. The Secretary of State has not come to that Dispatch Box. To say the sense of betrayal in my constituency is palpable would be an understatement.

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have surrendered to the lobby from those who oppose smoking? They have put people out of jobs and yet their very objective will not be achieved, because all that will happen is that people will move over to an illegal market, with far more dangerous tobacco products and the financing of criminal gangs?

Ian Paisley: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. There are three reasons why this factory is going to be closed. The first of the two main reasons is over-regulation. I am the first to say that smoking needs to be regulated—I do not smoke, I do not want my children to smoke, and the product is harmful so it has to be regulated—but to over-regulate it to such a degree that we close the industry down without stopping people smoking is just foolishness. 145 JTI Gallaher27 OCTOBER 2014 JTI Gallaher 146

The second key issue is the illicit trade. As a result of approximately a further £100 million will be lost from over-regulation—my hon. Friend pointed to this—one the local economy in terms of the costs associated with in four cigarettes smoked across the whole of the United transport, haulage firms and packaging companies. All Kingdom is an illicit cigarette that has been smuggled those other aspects of associated business and trade will in. That damages not only the economy and the country, be gone. It is therefore no wonder that the hon. Gentleman but these jobs. is concerned about the impact that the closure will have on employment in his constituency. Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government’s absurd proposal Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con): Does the for plain packaging of tobacco will not only be dangerous hon. Gentleman agree not only that the decision by JTI, to tobacco smokers, but is partly instrumental in the based on the tobacco products directive, shows why the loss of jobs in his constituency? Government must immediately cancel their plans to proceed with plain packaging for tobacco products, Ian Paisley: The European tobacco directive has but that all the evidence from Australia shows that undoubtedly helped to kill this industry, but let us be this will simply drive more customers into the illegal absolutely clear: the betrayal of the Government in trade, where there are none of the health benefits the putting in place plain packaging has said to an entire Government want to see and none of the money coming industry, “There’s no point staying in this country. into the Exchequer that they would wish? Moreover, it There’s no point continuing to manufacture in the United will lead to even more of the job losses he is suffering in Kingdom.” All it has done is driven—and it will continue Ballymena. to drive—those jobs to eastern Europe while cigarette smoking continues in Northern Ireland. Ian Paisley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. Government policy should be based on evidence. If Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): Europe clearly has there were evidence to show that plain packaging will a reason for the directive that is coming through, but reduce consumption, the Government would have every does my hon. Friend recognise the good work MEPs right to attempt to implement the policy. But given that Diane Dodds and Jim Nicholson did on behalf of JTI? it is basically guesswork, and that the trial on the Does he think Europe could have done more, and does ground in Australia shows that consumption is not he feel that the Minister should have more interaction decreasing as a result of plain packaging, but that illicit with Europe? trade is increasing, the Government should take stock Ian Paisley: My hon. Friend raises an interesting immediately. point which I want to address slightly later by talking about how Europe has played a devastating role in this Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) rose— development. Ian Paisley: I give way to the Chairman of the Northern Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): Does the hon. Ireland Affairs Committee. Gentleman agree that the Government caving in on this one, and indeed leading the charge on plain packaging, Mr Robertson: As a fellow member of the Select interferes with the intellectual property of companies, Committee, does the hon. Gentleman remember that which is a dangerous precedent, and that we will end up when we looked into the illicit trade issue and interviewed not with more people giving up smoking, but with the the head of the relevant department in Her Majesty’s exporting of jobs and the importing of tobacco products? Revenue and Customs, his view was that plain or standard packaging would actually increase counterfeiting and Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right the illicit trade? when he says that plain packaging will not do what it sets out to achieve. It will not reduce consumption; it Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman is making my case will simply help to destroy an industry. for me. He is clearly demonstrating, through his knowledge I appeal to the Government tonight. They could help of this subject and what HMRC has told him that the me to save jobs in my constituency and help me save this Government’s policy is wrong-headed and will not prevent industry by indicating firmly that they will review people from smoking. I say again: I want to see a immediately their decision to implement plain packaging, reduction in smoking, but we have to have a policy that allowing me to go back to the company and argue that works and is proven to work. The evidence is not there it is worth its while staying in a country that wants to to achieve the Government’s policy. encourage, not discourage, manufacturing. Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con): (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that when this Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not just his Government sent their draft regulations to the EU constituency that would feel the economic impact of indicating their intention to introduce standardised the closure of the JTI factory, but the whole of the packaging, that created the uncertainty in the industry north-west of England? Located in my constituency is that has affected Gallaher so badly—it is now unable to Heysham port, which is the reserve port for JTI’s goods. forward-plan—and yet no ministerial decision has been My port will lose out on business from JTI should the made and no debate has taken place in this Chamber? factory close. We have passed enabling legislation, but we did not make a final decision. Ian Paisley: It is not only that the 900 directly employed people in my constituency will lose their jobs. The hon. Ian Paisley: I thank the hon. Lady for bringing me on Gentleman mentions associated companies. Yes, I will to a key point—the impact of the European directive lose £60 million from my local wage economy, but and, importantly, the Government’s betrayal of this 147 JTI Gallaher27 OCTOBER 2014 JTI Gallaher 148

[Ian Paisley] What frustrates me most is that the Government had warning upon warning upon warning from not just me industry. The Prime Minister answered a parliamentary but colleagues. The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee question earlier last year on minimum pack size, which visited my constituency and the factory to find out is what the tobacco directive is all about. He said: about smuggling. The shadow Secretary of State for “It does not, on the face of it, sound a very sensible approach. Northern Ireland visited the factory, as did the previous I was not aware of the specific issue, so let me have a look at it and Northern Ireland Secretary. The Minister’s predecessor get back to my hon. Friend.”—[Official Report, 9 October 2013; has visited the factory, as have my Northern Ireland Vol. 568, c. 160.] colleagues and other MPs, including members of the The Prime Minister was answering a question from a Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. However, when I Government Member, and I believe that he has been let asked the Government to come and to say, “This fight is down by a failure of his party and colleagues to negotiate on. This is about saving jobs,” I got the terrible message the matter appropriately in Europe. that they did not want to be associated with the industry. I can represent jobs in my constituency without being While the then public health Minister, the hon. Member associated with smoking. It is a pity that there was not for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), had control of tobacco just a wee bit of strength—a wee bit of backbone—in products directive negotiations for the UK Government, the Government when it was needed. They could have she was required to keep Parliament informed of stood up to Europe and said, “We’re not implementing developments via the European Scrutiny Committee. that. That’s the end of our jobs.” Instead, they have When she was brought to that Committee on 17 July stubbed those jobs out, just like a fag end, and my 2013, she had to apologise for poor political practice, constituents are facing the terrible consequences of that saying: tonight. “I do not hesitate to apologise for the fact that this Committee There are some things that the Government could do, has not been fully informed. I only wish that, as a Minister, I was and I want to turn to those briefly in my closing aware of all the things that happen within my portfolio.” remarks. First, I think that they could look afresh at the That is an appalling indictment of a Minister who took issue of plain packaging and recognise that it offers her eye off a brief and allowed the policy to be rammed them a negotiating opportunity with the company. through with the consequences that we are feeling today. Removing the proposals for plain packaging and the We will reap a terrible harvest in Northern Ireland as a threat to the industry for the next five years would result. provide an opportunity to stretch those jobs out a little The provisions under the TPD on the minimum pack longer. I have managed to help negotiate a two-year sizes that may be manufactured have the direct impact stretch for those jobs. If we could push that to five, six, that 82% of the output of my constituency’s factory will seven or even eight years, because the Government are be made illegal. The Government have done that with prepared not to roll over on plain packaging, that the sweep of a pen—it is little wonder that 900 people would help considerably in defending and keeping those are being told that it is over for them. The Government jobs. could have said, “Let’s continue to manufacture, but not sell in the United Kingdom,” or looked at other Dame Angela Watkinson: Like my hon. Friend, I am options, but instead they implemented a policy even a non-smoker, but I never miss an opportunity to ask though their Minister said that she was not fully aware smokers whether their tobacco purchasing habits would of what was happening. That is a betrayal. It is a change if plain packaging were introduced. They find scandal that the Government were not paying proper the idea laughable, so the whole thing is based on a false attention. premise. The Government cannot say that they were not warned. I have spent three years in the House warning Ian Paisley: I agree with my hon. Friend. the Government about their actions. I was able to Secondly, I want the Government to help the work attract 82 signatures to an open letter to the Secretary force via the European globalisation fund, because many of State for Health from Members on both sides of the of my constituents currently in employment will need to House, including former and current Cabinet Ministers. be retrained. The skilled engineers, for example, could The letter stated that if the Government continued with work on oil rigs or do other engineering work, but the the tobacco directive and plain packaging, it would certifications needed cost thousands of pounds. The have globalisation fund, if accessed by Her Majesty’s “disastrous consequences for independent retailers, consumers Government, would allow for those certificates to be and those employed in the legitimate tobacco supply chain.” paid for and help those employees under a restructuring It said that the products affected involved deal. “a very significant level of employment in UK factories.” Finally, if the work force come up with an alternative plan to help save some of those jobs, I want the Government It said: to assist them by allowing them access to Invest Northern “Should these packs disappear, the machinery needed for them Ireland and other skilled business planners so that they will be made redundant alongside the workforce who are employed can put in place an alternative plan that will hold water to operate them. In the current economic climate, can the Government and can be put to the company’s headquarters in Geneva. afford to put so many UK manufacturing jobs at risk?” That way, they can see for themselves that there may be My constituents got the answer on 7 October: they were a viable alternative. If that happens, we might be able to told by this Government that they could be put at risk, postpone what is happening in Northern Ireland, but I that they did not matter, and that their jobs and livelihoods am really concerned that the Government have put out were over. these jobs for ever. 149 JTI Gallaher27 OCTOBER 2014 JTI Gallaher 150

10.32 pm Sammy Wilson: Does the Minister accept that while there may be a decline, the irony is that while the The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Government are encouraging the private sector to grow Ireland (Dr Andrew Murrison): I am grateful for the in Northern Ireland, in this instance Government policy opportunity to respond to my hon. Friend the Member has squeezed the private sector? for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and congratulate him on the robust way in which he has put the case. His Dr Murrison: I think that is a little unfair. Perhaps as constituents will be very pleased with that, and I think I go through my remarks, my hon. Friend will be that it does him great credit. The closure of the JTI somewhat assured that the Government are doing what Gallaher factory in Ballymena and the loss of hundreds they can to promote the private sector, in particular, in of jobs and some £60 million from the town’s economy, Northern Ireland. I think he should know that from his and indeed from the whole economy of Northern Ireland, experience of Northern Ireland overall, where the private is a major blow. He is quite right to put that in proportionate sector is doing relatively well and the economy is, without terms, making a comparison with Great Britain and a doubt, rebalancing, albeit at a rate that is perhaps not how we might view such losses on the mainland. He is as fast as we would have liked. quite right that this is indeed a major blow for the whole of Northern Ireland. I will do what I can to assure him There have also been job losses from the mechanisation that the Government are doing what we can, under the and streamlining of tobacco production, and that has terms of the 1998 agreement, to protect jobs in his had a greater impact on jobs than tobacco control constituency and promote the prosperity agenda in measures implemented by this Government. My hon. Northern Ireland at this difficult time. Friend the Member for North Antrim would probably accept that, given the changing nature of this industry, As my hon. Friend said, the factory in his constituency which he will have seen over many years. has been producing tobacco for 150 years and is the last tobacco manufacturing concern in the UK. I recall my On the tobacco products directive, my hon. Friend own visit to one of the last tobacco factories in the UK, should know that I am generally loth to accept anything in Bristol 30 years ago—ironically, I was at medical that comes out of the European Union, particularly school. Cigarette factories then were commonplace, when it results in regulation. However, it is fair to say and I think that he would admit that their decline is in that the tobacco products directive aims to protect some respects a good thing, since it tracks the fall in health—that of his constituents, my constituents, and smoking, but not if production is simply shifted abroad. all constituents. Tobacco use is responsible for an estimated Of course we would all much rather have those jobs 700,000 avoidable deaths in the EU every year, and here in the UK and, specifically in the context of this smoking accounts for over one third of respiratory evening’s debate, in Northern Ireland. deaths, over one quarter of cancer deaths, and about one seventh of cardiovascular disease deaths. I have The announcement takes place against the background seen these cases; I saw them day in, day out when I was of the Northern Ireland economy continuing to move practising regularly. I am sure he would agree that if we away from its reliance on industrial production. It is still are to make any progress in improving public health, we too reliant on the public sector for jobs, as he knows. have to cut the consumption of cigarettes. I do not The economy in Northern Ireland is rebalancing, with think there is any difference between us on that. the generation of creative industries, life sciences and the knowledge-based sector, which accounts for the large majority of all foreign direct investment into Mr Burley: Will the Minister give way? Northern Ireland. Aerospace, for example, continues to perform well in a very competitive market. Dr Murrison: Very briefly. I accept, of course, that it is cold comfort for JTI Mr Burley: Does the Minister accept that smoking is employees to be told that software and financial services not illegal in this country, and unless he is proposing to are experiencing the fastest growth or that Belfast is the make it illegal, it makes no sense to regulate the industry No. 1 destination globally for financial technology into the hands of organised crime, whereby money will investment. My hon. Friend will be aware, however, that not be going into the Exchequer and there will not be the prospects for the tobacco industry overall are not the health benefits he is talking about? It is not an very good. Indeed, they point to long-term decline as illegal activity, and we have a duty to protect jobs in demand for cigarettes continues to fall and smoking manufacturing products involved in a legal activity. rates edge downwards all the time. This is of course good news for health, but very bad for jobs in his Dr Murrison: It is clearly not an illegal activity, and I constituency. hope it never will be. For as long as people wish to In 1974, almost half the UK population smoked—a smoke, they are entitled to do so. HMRC has the remarkable thing to reflect on now. Last year, the figure control of tobacco smuggling in Northern Ireland as its had fallen to 18.7%. About 68% of smokers want to joint No. 1 priority. In my view, people are entitled to quit and are increasingly aware of the dire health smoke if they want to, but if we are interested in implications of smoking. The tobacco industry has improving public health, there are measures we can take recognised the declining market caused by consumers’ to reduce consumption. Tobacco consumption is in health concerns and is diversifying into electronic cigarettes long-term decline, as I described, and we need to try to and associated technology that is deemed to be safer. work out what that means for the industry in this country, particularly in Northern Ireland, and how we Sammy Wilson rose— can diversify it to create new jobs to replace those that are being lost. In the very few minutes that I have Dr Murrison: If my hon. Friend wants to intervene, I available, I will try to describe how the Government ask him to do so briefly as I do not have much time. propose to do that. 151 JTI Gallaher27 OCTOBER 2014 JTI Gallaher 152

[Dr Murrison] is first and foremost a matter for the Executive, which I suspect my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim No decision has yet been made on standardised knows full well. packaging of tobacco products. Ministers at the Department The auguries are good—my hon. Friend knows that. of Health will review the results of the recent consultation Northern Ireland continues to do well in respect of before taking a position. My hon. Friend the Member inward investment. Indeed, under devolution it has for North Antrim has read Sir Cyril Chantler’s report attracted more than twice its share of UK incoming and it does not give him much comfort, but I am sure jobs and investment. Since the start of 2014, Invest that my colleagues at the Department of Health will Northern Ireland has announced more than 1,250 new note the contents of this debate very carefully and that jobs from 11 new inward investors. That is an incredible they will be mindful, as all Ministers are, of the particular achievement of which Northern Ireland should be very impact this issue is likely to have in Northern Ireland, proud indeed. The future looks bright and maintaining for the reasons my hon. Friend has elegantly laid out. that momentum has to be the priority of both the It is important that we find new and sustainable work Executive and the Government. My hon. Friend can be for JTI employees. Obviously, the Executive are in the absolutely certain that we will do whatever we can to lead, notwithstanding what my hon. Friend the Member support the prosperity agenda in Northern Ireland and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) has said about the make sure that his constituents benefit fully from that, Westminster Government in his typically robust terms. given what has happened recently in relation to JTI I know that Arlene Foster, the Minister for Enterprise, Gallaher. Trade and Investment, and Dr Stephen Farry, the Minister The economic pact published last year represents a for Employment and Learning, have conducted a skills different approach to delivering the Government and audit at the factory. the Executive’s shared aims of rebalancing the economy and building a shared future. It recognises that working I have spoken to Arlene myself and she is very much together can deliver better results for the people of on the case. Stephen Farry is on record as saying that Northern Ireland. “Building a Prosperous and United his priority is to re-skill the work force and to ensure Community: One Year On”, published in the summer, access to training courses, particularly in further education makes for good reading. It is a backdrop against which and especially at the Northern regional college. My own I hope the work force in my hon. Friend’s constituency constituency experience very much suggests that the will emerge well from the setback that he has so ably focus and priority in situations such as these has to be brought to the attention of the House. re-skilling and up-skilling the work force, and I am very Question put and agreed to. pleased that that work is under way. The Government will, of course, support that wherever they can, but I 10.43 pm must emphasise that, under the devolved settlement, it House adjourned. 1WS Written Statements27 OCTOBER 2014 Written Statements 2WS

In July 2012, the Kay review report set out a vision Written Statements for reform of UK equity markets to ensure that they support long-term investment, constructive relationships Monday 27 October 2014 between companies and in their investors, and sustainable value creation by British companies. The Government have welcomed the review and responded in November 2012 setting out a number of steps it would take to BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS deliver against its recommendations, and calling for a sustained commitment to reform from both, Government and market participants. EU Informal Foreign Affairs Council In the response we committed to publishing an update on progress achieved by the Government, regulatory The Minister for Business and Enterprise (Matthew authorities and market participants, to deliver the review’s Hancock): My noble Friend the Minister of State for specific recommendations, and to respond to its wider Trade and Investment (Lord Livingston) has today principles and directions. The report meets that made the following statement. commitment, providing a broad stock-take of measures The EU Informal Foreign Affairs Council (Trade) took taken by the Government and regulatory authorities place in Rome on 15 October 2014. relevant to the delivery of the recommendations and I represented the UK on all the issues discussed at the wider principles of the Kay review. It also summarises meeting. A summary of those discussions follows. progress made by business groups and the investment Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) industry to develop good practice as Professor Kay suggested. The presidency took stock of the recent negotiating rounds. Member states reiterated their commitment to securing a The Government believe this represents significant deal, recalling the geopolitical importance of the agreement progress to implement the agenda set out in the Kay and looking ahead to fresh impetus after the US mid-term review. However a further sustained commitment from elections. Member states agreed on the need to improve transparency and public engagement, in order to highlight Government and market participants will be needed to the benefits of TTIP more effectively and respond to concerns. deliver this important agenda. The report therefore also There was a discussion on several areas of the negotiations, highlights plans for further work in a number of areas. including trade in services, geographical indications, energy and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). This programme of work should be seen in the context The Council meeting was preceded by a dinner attended of the Government’s Industrial Strategy which reflects by EU Trade Ministers, EU Trade Commissioner De Gucht the long-term focus recommended by Professor Kay. and the US Trade Representative, Michael Froman. The The strategy aims to develop enduring partnerships discussion reflected on progress so far, areas of difficulty in between Government and business to give confidence the negotiations and public concerns in the EU. Several for investment and growth. member states intervened on specific issues, including transparency, the energy sector and services. Today’s report also incorporates the Government’s Russia/Ukraine response to the Law Commission review of fiduciary Commissioner De Gucht provided reassurance that only duties. The Government have already welcomed the the EU and Ukraine could table files for amendment and Law Commission’s report, published in July 2012, which stated that he could not see the European Parliament agreeing was commissioned in response to a recommendation of to any significant changes. Member states then engaged in a the Kay review. In particular we have welcomed its clear limited debate. guidance on the factors which fiduciaries and other WTO Doha Development Agenda investment intermediaries should consider when investing The Commission reported that there had been no progress on behalf of others. We now set out a more detailed, in Geneva towards securing Indian agreement to the trade positive response to the Law Commission’s specific facilitation agreement reached in Bali last year. Discussion recommendations, which include a commitment to ensure ensued on potential ways forward. that the Law Commission’s core findings with respect to AOB - State of play of legislative items Trade Defence consideration of long-term factors in investment decisions Instruments and International Procurement Instruments will be embedded in regulatory guidance. The presidency noted that there had been no agreement on these files within Council to date, and that there would be Alongside today’s progress report, we are also publishing further discussion on them at a later date. There was no two additional documents resulting from the Government’s debate. programme of work to implement the Kay review. Copies of each of these documents will be placed in the Libraries of the Houses. First, we are publishing an independent research paper, commissioned as part of our response to the Kay Kay Review Report review, into the metrics and models used to assess company and investment performance by long-term investors. Our intention is to convene a number of The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and focused round-table discussions involving investors, asset Skills (Vince Cable): I would like to inform the House managers and companies, and relevant regulatory that the Government are today publishing a report on authorities, to discuss the findings of this research and progress made in implementing the recommendations to agree what practical steps may be appropriate. These of the Kay review of equity markets. Copies of the may include the development of guidance on good report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. practice or regulatory reforms. 3WS Written Statements27 OCTOBER 2014 Written Statements 4WS

Secondly, we are publishing the note of a BIS round-table CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT of expert stakeholders which we convened to consider whether policy measures restricting the role of short-term shareholders during a takeover bid could be made to First World War Centenary Cathedral Repairs Fund work in practice. We had committed to look in detail at this question in our response to a recommendation of the BIS Select Committee report on the Kay review of The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport November 2013. (Sajid Javid): I am today publishing the list of successful bidders to the second round of the First World War Overall, the discussion reached a clear consensus, Centenary Cathedral Repairs Fund. broadly in line with the Government’s previous analysis, The £20 million Fund, which was announced by the that there are a series of legal and technical implementation Chancellor of the Exchequer at Budget 2014, enables issues which would be extremely difficult to overcome cathedrals to undertake urgent repair work. Cathedrals in introducing such a measure, and that it appeared are powerful symbols of Britain’s shared history and unlikely that a disenfranchisement measure would are especially important as the nation comes together to eliminate the influence of short-term shareholders in a commemorate the centenary of the first world war. takeover bid. In light of these conclusions and the level Decisions on funding allocations are taken by an of consensus among those attending the round-table, expert panel which considers the grant applications we have no plans to introduce a disenfranchisement against the published criteria for the scheme and decides measure. which cathedrals should receive funding. The panel is Separately, the progress report provides a more general chaired by Sir Paul Ruddock and includes senior figures summary of policy developments relevant to Professor from English Heritage, the Heritage Lottery Fund, the Kay’s recommendation that the Government keep the Church of England and the Catholic Church, as well as scale and effectiveness of merger activity under review, church architects, architectural historians and grant and in particular notes the Takeover Panel’s recent giving experts. proposed changes to the Takeover Code. Copies of each I am pleased to confirm that the panel has decided to of these documents will also be placed in the Libraries allocate funding of almost £8.3million to 31 cathedrals of both Houses. in the second round. These are as follows:

Details of the cathedral grants Cathedral Denomination Funding Project

Arundel Catholic £200,000 Repairs to south side windows Birmingham St Chads Catholic £227,000 High level repairs Blackburn Cathedral CofE £314,251 High level repairs Bradford CofE £349,479 Repairs to State Gate Bristol CofE £184,000 Replacement boilers Canterbury CofE £150,00 Repairs to north west transept Chelmsford CofE £268,622 Repairs to tower Chester CofE £300,000 High level works and emergency lighting Chichester CofE £100,000 Replacing roof to south-east transept Clifton (Bristol) Catholic £600,000 Roof repairs Coventry CofE £216,265 Repairs to crypts Ely CofE £392,060 Repairs to south transept Exeter CofE £277,547 Repairs to Chapel of St Andrew and St Catherine Hereford CofE £300,000 Repairs to roofs Lancaster Catholic £15,000 Replacement electrical distribution board Lincoln CofE £300,000 Repairs to north-west transept triforium roof Liverpool Anglican CofE £275,000 Repairs to Lady Chapel and nave roof Manchester CofE £225,000 Roof replacement/reinstatement Newcastle CofE £155,572 Repairs to library roof Norwich CofE £491,000 Works to north clerestory and presbytery Peterborough Catholic £88,433 Repairs to Old Baptistry Gable Portsmouth CofE £594,783 Repairs to tower and south transept Rochester CofE £153,000 Repairs to roof Ripon CofE £354,617 Repairs to north transept and east elevation Sheffield St Marie Catholic £270,528 Repairs to spire 5WS Written Statements27 OCTOBER 2014 Written Statements 6WS

Details of the cathedral grants Cathedral Denomination Funding Project

Southwark (St Georges) Catholic £167,000 Repairs to parapets Truro CofE £500,000 Repairs to nave and nave aisle roof Wakefield CofE £220,000 Repairs to lead roof of quire and nave Wells CofE £160,000 Repairs to north nave aisle roof Worcester CofE £250,316 Repairs to east window York Minster CofE £200,000 Repairs to Camera Cantorum Stonework stonework and roof Total Amount £8,299,473

The panel will meet again in February 2015 to take Sewage Discharges (England) decisions on applications to the third and final round of the First World War Centenary Cathedral repairs fund. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson): The Government are committed to improving water EU Environment Council quality and protecting the environment. Following consultation on our proposals earlier in the year, the Government have decided to implement a simpler regulatory The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for framework to control small sewage discharges in England. Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson): The approach has three main strands: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy simplifying the regulatory framework and Climate Change and I will attend EU Environment Council in Luxembourg on 28 October. a more risk-based approach to sensitive areas Following the adoption of the agenda there will be an communication and engagement with rural householders, approval of the list of “A” items. There will be one business and other stakeholders, as part of wider ongoing work to improve water quality. legislative item which is an orientation debate on the Waste Package. There will be two non-legislative items: I will today lay new regulations [Statutory Instrument firstly, the adoption of the Council Conclusions on the No. 2014/2852] which amend the Environmental Permitting preparations for the 20th session of the Conference of (England and Wales) Regulations 2010. These changes the Parties (COP 20) to the United Nations Framework will come into effect on 1 January 2015 and will remove Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the unnecessary administrative burdens on many rural 10th session of the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto households and businesses whilst keeping the essential Protocol (CMP 10); and secondly, the adoption of controls to protect the environment and prevent pollution. Council Conclusions on Greening the European Semester The new approach focuses action on making sure and the Europe 2020 Strategy. septic tanks and sewage treatment plants are well maintained There will be a Ministerial lunchtime discussion on and not causing pollution through poor maintenance the EU 2030 Climate and Energy framework. It is or installation, and that water resources, drinking water anticipated that the Italian Presidency will circulate supplies, sensitive areas and rare habitats continue to be questions following discussions on the EU 2030 Framework protected. Over the coming months and during 2015, at European Council on 23-24 October. DEFRA and the Environment Agency will work with There is a series of AoB items covering: stakeholders and partners to communicate the new a) Recent international meetings: approach to rural households and businesses. i) Twelfth Conference of the Parties (COP12) to the Convention The amendments simplify existing regulation by removing on Biological Diversity (Pyeongchang, Republic of Korea) the requirements to register, keep records of maintenance ii) Seventh Meeting of the Conference of the Parties and notify when a discharge ceases. The requirements serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena to prevent pollution are retained and will be known in Protocol on Biosafety (COP-MOP 7) (Pyeongchang, Republic future as the general binding rule this means that the of Korea) basic rules that people need to follow are not changing. iii) First Meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving The amendments also update the definition of an as the meeting of the parties to the Nagoya Protocol on “operator” - the person in control of a small sewage Access and Benefit Sharing (COP-MOP 1) (Pyeongchang, Republic of Korea) discharge. iv) Fifth Meeting of the Parties (MOP5) to the Aarhus Environmental permits for small sewage discharges Convention on access to information, public participation in will continue to be used in certain areas to protect decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental drinking waters sources and other sensitive areas. Permits, matters (Maastricht) where required, will set extra conditions in addition to v) Second Meeting of the Parties (MOPP2) to the Protocol the general binding rules. on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (Maastricht) vi) Fourth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to In summary the regulatory framework will now comprise: the Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable General binding rules that apply to all small sewage Development of the Carpathians (Mikulov, Czech Republic) discharges in England. These rules set the conditions that and the Czech Presidency to the Convention 2014. septic tanks and treatment plants will need to meet in order b) European Sustainable Development Week (ESDW). for them to be used without an environmental permit. 7WS Written Statements27 OCTOBER 2014 Written Statements 8WS

In or near sensitive areas described in the Environment The Government also welcome the report’s Agency’s designated sensitive areas list for small sewage recommendation that co-operation on transport issues discharges, new discharges (i.e. those started on or after should be formalised in the north. We will create a new 1 January 2015) will be required to have an environmental body called Transport for the North (TfN), made up of permit. Existing discharges (i.e. those already being made before 1 January 2015) will be governed by the general the main northern city regions. This body will work binding rules. Additional measures to protect local environments together with other authorities and stakeholders and may be set through environmental permits depending on the allow the north to speak with one voice on the big type of area and local conditions. The Environment Agency decisions, to benefit the region as a whole. will take a risk-based approach to permitting and will work I would like to invite these cities to come together and with Natural England, other stakeholders and local communities to take account of local conditions and evidence. work with the Government on the options for HS3, alongside a wider transport strategy for the north. I For areas in groundwater source protection zone 1s, all small sewage discharges to ground, both existing and new, intend that this Government-led strategy will be developed will continue to require an environmental permit. with input from Network Rail, the Highways Agency as Discharges from septic tanks and treatment plants well as TfN, and will stretch from Liverpool to Sheffield, that do not meet the conditions for a small sewage Hull and Newcastle. discharge will continue to need an environmental permit. I also welcome Sir David’s recommendations on the The general binding rules consist of the controls modifications to the Y route, and will commission HS2 specified in the amended regulations laid today together Ltd to do more work on the route and stations for with technical requirements specified by the Environment phase 2. Agency as the Regulatory Authority. The technical This includes further work on Leeds station, south requirements include: the design and manufacturing Yorkshire and east Midlands’ hubs, the approach to standards; construction, installation and operation Manchester, the Golborne link, the link to the East specifications; sitting and installation of infiltration Coast Main Line and proposals for a hub station at systems; and the capacity of the works and equipment. Crewe. We will also continue to look at options for Copies of the general binding rules, together with benefiting those places not directly on the line of route. some additional information on the new approach will On the western leg, the Government’s consideration be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The Government of the evidence so far indicates that routing the western response to the consultation, published on 9 October leg via Crewe would be the right strategic option. That 2014 is available on Gov.uk. The Environment Agency is still to be confirmed. But we will work on ways to will publish guidance when the regulations come into accelerate delivery of the section to Crewe, pending a effect. In the meantime questions or requests for advice decision on the route in 2015. on the new approach can be directed to the Environment In turn, I would ask HS2 Ltd to work with Stoke, Agency’s National Customer Contact Centre on 03708 Stafford and Macclesfield to enable direct high speed 506 506. train services to serve those towns and cities via the Handsacre junction and classic network. The report concludes that the route into Manchester TRANSPORT should run via Manchester airport, with decisions on an airport station to be taken in due course. It also says that further work is necessary on the High Speed 2 Golborne link, both the route and the depot location. I will ask HS2 Ltd to continue work on this. On the eastern leg, the location of the east Midlands The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick hub needs to work for both Derby and Nottingham, McLoughlin): Sir David Higgins, the Chairman of HS2 and provide the best possible connectivity to the wider Ltd, has today presented the Government with his region. I am asking HS2 Ltd to continue work on this. recommendations on how to transform transport Sir David remains convinced on current evidence that connectivity in the north. His report, Rebalancing Britain, Sheffield Meadowhall is the right location for the south has confirmed the Government’s strategy of developing Yorkshire hub. I am waiting for further evidence from HS2 is the right one. Sheffield before a final decision on this. In particular, Sir David confirms that the strategic The Leeds station site needs to work for both improved goal of the Y network to link Birmingham to Manchester east-west connectivity and for HS2. I will request a full and Leeds by high speed rail is right and should be review of options for the station, in conjunction with delivered as quickly as possible. He makes recommendations Leeds city council. for some small modifications. In addition the report says that a new east-west high I will also ask HS2 Ltd to conduct a review into the speed link could halve journey times between Manchester cost, and the time it takes to build high speed rail lines, and Leeds, transforming the economic geography of drawing on international experience, to find ways of the country. bringing down the cost of phase 2. In response, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor We will take decisions on how to take phase 2 forward have today given the green light to develop proposals in 2015. for HS3: a high speed rail link designed to bring together We are making good progress on the phase 1 Hybrid the north’s great cities thereby cutting journey times, Bill, and we expect to start construction in 2017. This boosting businesses and creating more jobs and security will improve journey times not only to and from for hardworking people. Birmingham, but to the north and Scotland. 9WS Written Statements27 OCTOBER 2014 Written Statements 10WS

The Government’s vision is that our high speed rail “Rebalancing Britain” supports the delivery of our network will provide the spine of our 21st century vision - working with interested organisations and planning transport system. The network will bring closer together the railway as effectively as possible. the key economic centres in England and Scotland.

1P Petitions27 OCTOBER 2014 Petitions 2P

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever Petition pray, &c.—[Presented by Mr Peter Bone, Official Report, 14 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 272.]

Monday 27 October 2014 [P001389] Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities OBSERVATIONS and Local Government: The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is aware that a planning application has COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT been submitted to East Northamptonshire Council in Planning application for Rushden Recycling Centre respect of the above development. (Wellingborough) East Northamptonshire Council is responsible for The Humble Petition of Residents of Rushden, the day-to-day planning of its area. The Government’s Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas, policy is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of a local Sheweth, planning authority unless it is necessary to do so. This is That the Petitioners believe that the proposed planning because local authority councillors are elected to represent application for a new Lidl store in Rushden, to be built the views of local people and, in the main, it is these on the old recycling centre - planning application reference: councillors who are in the best position to decide whether 14/01014/FUL - is unacceptable, because there are already a development should go ahead. In determining a planning too many supermarkets and convenience stores in the application, the local planning authority is required to area and the Petitioners believe that it will have a have regard to all material considerations including the detrimental effect on the town. development plan, national policies and views expressed by third parties. It is, of course, for local planning Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable authorities to provide whatever justification that may House urges the Department for Communities and be appropriate to give for their decisions and procedures. Local Government to encourage Northamptonshire County Council and East Northamptonshire District Council As this proposal may, at some future date, come to work together to ensure that the current proposal is within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State, it rejected and that a more suitable facility be built on the would be inappropriate to comment on the specific old recycling centre. issues raised in the petition.

1MC Ministerial Corrections27 OCTOBER 2014 Ministerial Corrections 2MC

and reducing the number of multiple vehicles attending Ministerial Correction each call. We are working with Health Education England to increase the pool of paramedics, with 240 being Monday 27 October 2014 trained in 2014, going up to 700 in 2018. Urgent measures are being taken to address the problem right now. I have had those assurances directly from managers in the trust whom I met very recently. HEALTH [Official Report, 21 October 2014, Vol. 586, c. 748.] Ambulance Response Times (London) Letter of correction from Jane Ellison: The following is an extract from Questions to the An error has been identified in the response I gave to Secretary of State for Health on 21 October 2014. the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) during Questions to the Secretary of State for Health. Heidi Alexander: London ambulances are taking, on average, two minutes longer than they did three years The correct response should have been: ago to respond to the most serious call-outs. The chief executive of the service is quite open about the fact that Jane Ellison: This affects my constituents too, as I she does not have enough staff on each shift every day. am also a London MP and therefore take a very close This is a service in chaos. Will the Minister be explicit interest in it. I think it is unfair to say that the trust is in about the support her Government are giving to ensure chaos. It is taking urgent steps to address the situation, that my constituents, and Londoners, get the service including recruiting extra paramedics, increasing they deserve? overtime, and reducing the number of multiple vehicles attending each call. We are working with Health Jane Ellison: This affects my constituents too, as I Education England to increase the pool of paramedics, am also a London MP and therefore take a very close with 340 being trained in 2014, going up to 700 in 2018. interest in it. I think it is unfair to say that the trust is in Urgent measures are being taken to address the chaos. It is taking urgent steps to address the situation, problem right now. I have had those assurances directly including recruiting extra paramedics, increasing overtime, from managers in the trust whom I met very recently.

ORAL ANSWERS

Monday 27 October 2014

Col. No. Col. No. EDUCATION...... 1 EDUCATION—continued Academies...... 14 Qualified Teacher Status ...... 4 Academy Sponsorship ...... 15 School Budgets (Pension Changes) ...... 5 Apprenticeships ...... 1 School Buildings ...... 8 Apprenticeships ...... 10 Schools in Special Measures...... 3 Careers Advice...... 12 STEM Subjects (Female Pupils)...... 8 Faith Schools ...... 17 Technical Baccalaureate...... 6 Free School Meals (Infants)...... 15 Topical Questions ...... 18 Free Schools...... 16 Workplace Skills ...... 11 Primary School Places...... 5 WRITTEN STATEMENTS

Monday 27 October 2014

Col. No. Col. No. BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS ...... 1WS ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL EU Informal Foreign Affairs Council ...... 1WS AFFAIRS...... 5WS Kay Review Report ...... 1WS EU Environment Council ...... 5WS Sewage Discharges (England)...... 6WS CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT ...... 4WS First World War Centenary Cathedral Repairs TRANSPORT ...... 7WS Fund ...... 4WS High Speed 2...... 7WS PETITION

Monday 27 October 2014

Col. No. Col. No. COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT .1P Planning application for Rushden Recycling Centre (Wellingborough) ...... 1P MINISTERIAL CORRECTION

Monday 27 October 2014

Col. No. HEALTH...... 1MC Ambulance Response Times (London)...... 1MC Members who wish to have the Daily Report of the Debates forwarded to them should give notice at the Vote Office. No proofs of the Daily Reports can be supplied. Corrections which Members suggest for the Bound Volume should be clearly marked in the Daily Report, but not telephoned, and the copy containing the Corrections must be received at the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than Monday 3 November 2014

STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT GREATLY FACILITATES THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE VOLUMES

Members may obtain excerpts of their Speeches from the Official Report (within one month from the date of publication), on application to the Stationery Office, c/o the Editor of the Official Report, House of Commons, from whom the terms and conditions of reprinting may be ascertained. Application forms are available at the Vote Office.

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES DAILY PARTS Single copies: Commons, £5; Lords, £4. Annual subscriptions: Commons, £865; Lords, £600. LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request. BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session. Single copies: Commons, £105; Lords, £60 (£100 for a two-volume edition). Standing orders will be accepted. THE INDEX to each Bound Volumeof House of Commons Debates is published separately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing order. All prices are inclusive of postage Volume 587 Monday No. 50 27 October 2014

CONTENTS

Monday 27 October 2014

List of Government and Principal Officers of the House

Oral Answers to Questions [Col. 1] [see index inside back page] Secretary of State for Education

European Council [Col. 23] Statement—(Prime Minister)

International Trade Agreements (Scrutiny) [Col. 50] Bill presented, and read the First time

Recall of MPs Bill [Col. 51] Considered in Committee

JTI Gallaher [Col. 144] Debate on motion for Adjournment

Written Statements [Col. 1WS]

Petition [Col. 1P] Observations

Ministerial Correction [Col. 1MC]

Written Answers to Questions [The written answers can now be found at http//www.parliament.uk/writtenanswers]