here - United Kingdom Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

859 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 860 [Mark Durkan] I therefore ask the Minister to acknowledge that there are shortcomings in the Bill. Some of the amendments have their own shortcomings, but they do not diminish the serious problems with the Bill. If he will not accept amendments 6 and 23, will he agree to work in another place and in the House at another time to make his own amendments, so that the Bill does not create those difficulties and controversies? Under the Bill, the Speaker could be the subject of controversy. What if there are differences between the Speaker and Deputy Speakers on the question whether to indicate in advance that a motion is certifiable? More importantly, as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said, I believe that such matters could find themselves before a court, not only because somebody might want to contest the fact or content of a certificate, but more importantly because people might want to contest the failure to issue a certificate or the fairly questionable proceedings in advance of it. We do not want the Speaker of the House of Commons to be caught in the same position as Scottish football referees. They have been accused of taking and changing decisions in relation to subsequent arguments and events. Let us protect the office of the Speaker and this House. Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con): I rise to make a brief contribution. I have listened with great interest to the debate and I await with even greater interest the Minister’s response to the very well advocated position on amendment 6, with which I have great sympathy. It seems blindingly simple to me. Clause 2(3) stops at the words, “for all purposes.” The comparison with section 3 of the Parliament Act 1911 has been made, so why not include the extra words, “and shall not be questioned in any court of law”? The amendment proposes the use of the word “whatsoever”, which was no doubt an attempt by my hon. Friend the. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) to deal with the European question—that is perfectly legitimate and I understand entirely the reason for his wording—but the point is the same: if such a provision was good in 1911, why is it not good now? If anything, the balance between Parliament and the courts has deteriorated, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) eloquently outlined. The balance is now extremely fine, and it is in danger of being overturned in favour of judicial activism. It may well be that reliance will be placed upon the residual powers of article 9 of the Bill of Rights, but as an Act of Parliament, that too is subject to judicial interpretation. Over the years, it has been interpreted in a variety of ways by the courts. Notably, it has been impliedly waived or restricted by this House. Section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996 is a good example of Parliament deciding, in effect, to allow its privilege to be qualified. I have strong views on the wisdom of that legislation—it was foolish and has led to unintended consequences, which are at the heart of this debate. No Member of Parliament wants a diminution of its authority or power. This is an elected Chamber and we represent the people of this country. Sovereignty means just that. It is right that all hon. Members worry—even if it is sounds like lawyers’ caution—about any further unintended diminution of our authority. That is why I support amendment 6. Why not change clause 2(3) to put things as far beyond doubt as possible, mirroring what legislators did in 1911, to ensure that the spectre of the judiciary questioning and second-guessing the proceedings of the House does not become a reality? Mr Cox: I had not intended to speak, and I shall be extremely brief. Most of my remarks will be addressed to the Minister in the hope that he can provide the clarification in substance to the questions asked by my hon. Friends and Opposition Members, which I should like to reinforce. My first question is precisely that which my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) just asked. Why not add the proposed words? If clause 2(3) is intended to be an instruction to the courts that a certificate shall not be challenged, on the face of it there could be no real reason, unless the Minister has thought of something that others have not thought of or been advised otherwise, why the injunction of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), which is more expressive, explicit and detailed, should not be added. Will the Minister elucidate the purpose of stopping short at the word “purposes” and not going on to be as explicit as possible? I ask that because historically, ouster clauses in administrative law have not been conspicuously successful. The courts have not paid very much attention to interpreting their duty to examine such issues, and often even where the ouster clause has been passed. [Interruption.] I see from the sedentary reaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath)—the Deputy Leader of the House—that the reason may be that such provisions are so pointless that there is no point in going any further. If that is the reason, it would be helpful if the Government made that clear, so that Members could consider that. I have to tell him that I do not consider the provision to be pointless—I would not imagine that the Government would do anything that was pointless in drafting the legislation. The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath) indicated assent. Mr Cox: I see my hon. Friend nodding sagely. That provision therefore must have a function. If that function can be increased in its effect and efficacy by adding the proposed words, why not incorporate them? 3pm That brings me to my second point. If it is necessary under clause 3(3) to try to instruct the courts that the certificate should not be justiciable—that it should not be considered—that must imply, as does my hon. Friend’s reaction from the Front Bench, that the Government are aware that the courts may well, even in remote and possibly extreme circumstances, become ensnared in the examination of these issues. One can see considerable skill and intelligence at work in the drafting of the Bill. One sees that it is intended not to be tempting to the courts. If we codify too much in statute, the danger is that the courts would be drawn into examining whether the preconditions for a motion of confidence had been met, whether the definitions were properly complied with and so on. What the legislation seems to be doing—if
861 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 862 this is the intention, it is a laudable one—is enacting, in broad outline, so as to make it clear to the courts, that the critical questions of definition and discretion are still for the House and the proper authorities of the House. It is a statute that is intended to preserve a certain flexibility and suppleness so that the courts are not drawn into examining such issues, whereas they would be if we laid down too precise a definition of the concepts that they involve. I appreciate that, and I see the point of it. It no doubt forms part of the Government’s confidence that the courts will not ordinarily enter into that territory. However, the mere presence of that ouster clause suggests that the Government are aware that in some circumstances they might. As the Government have indicated—albeit via a sedentary reaction—they are plainly aware that ouster clauses do not always work. That suggests to me that the Government are content—or at least have made a strategic decision—that in certain circumstances the judicial authorities may come to interpret and consider this legislation. I accept that that is highly unlikely in the ordinary case, given the amount of discretion, the amount of territory left to the Speaker and the ill-defined nature of many of the concepts. It would be a bold court indeed that entered into a discussion of such issues and allowed them to become the subject of a judicial review. Mr Jenkin: We all know that we are talking about heated and potentially controversial circumstances. If there was a raging controversy about alleged malpractice in our proceedings or surrounding them, and if public opinion was strongly supportive of one view or the other, there would be intense pressure on a court to intervene. Does my hon. and learned Friend not think it would be difficult for a court not to intervene under such circumstances? Mr Cox: No, I do not think that. Intense pressure is precisely what an independent judiciary is set up to resist. One would expect and hope for that from a senior judge. We are fortunate in the judiciary we have in this country. I hope that hon. Members will reflect carefully on some of the language that we have used in this debate today. It is not the case that the judiciary have an appetite to assume the powers of this House. Indeed, in my experience the preponderance in the judiciary is to be careful and scrupulous in the way they observe the parameters of judicial power. The problem is—if I can extend this parenthesis as briefly as I may—that we have invited the judiciary into the territory time after time, since the European Communities Act 1972, which fundamentally altered the constitutional arrangements in this country. It essentially meant that there was a higher constitutional court, namely the European Court of Justice—we already have it—which presupposes and believes it is capable of trumping domestic law. That ultimately led to a decision in a case called Factortame, in which an Act of Parliament was set aside by the House of Lords, on the basis of the seniority—or superiority—of the European Union’s law. Then we had the Human Rights Act 1998, which preserves—or attempts to preserve—a careful balance. Nevertheless, it invites the courts into consideration of the policies and legislative objectives—almost on the basis of their merits—that this House has always considered to be its prerogative and to fall within its exclusive sphere. The courts are careful, but they themselves acknowledge that the Human Rights Act has invited them further into that territory. Chris Bryant: The hon. and learned Gentleman is making an important contribution, and he is right about the reluctance of the courts, for the most part, to intervene and tread on our toes, as it were. However, the truth is that those elements of parliamentary privilege that attach because of not wishing to interfere with proceedings in Parliament get very fuzzy at the edges. Indeed, there are areas where others want the courts to express a view. My anxiety is not that there would be a challenge when the Speaker had issued a certificate, but that a challenge would be far more likely when the Speaker had decided not to do so. Mr Cox: I have heard that observation made, and I hope that the Minister will be able to address it. I do not feel quite as concerned as hon. Members who have expressed their views on that point, and I will say why. A court would very soon see through an argument that went: “The Speaker has not issued a certificate in circumstances where we”—the party bringing the application to the court—“think he should have done.” The reason is that if a certificate is conclusive for all purposes, so must the absence of a certificate be. I do not believe for a moment that a court would see the matter any other way when the Speaker had chosen not to make a certificate. Otherwise, we would have to have a provision in the Bill saying that if the Speaker chooses not to certify, that should not be challenged either. It must be implied that if a Speaker made a deliberate and conscious choice not to certify, the absence of the certificate—that choice—must equally be conclusive, and I think that most courts would see it that way. One could argue that that should be explicit in the Bill, but for my purposes, I would not have thought a court would find impressive an argument that said that a Speaker who decided not to certify could be judicially reviewed, whereas if he had certified—let us say, in the negative—he could not be. That would be pointless. Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab): The issuing or non-issuing of a certificate is a slightly false comparison. The issuing of a certificate would result in action—providing that it was not challenged successfully in a court—whereas the non-issuing of a certificate would, I presume, simply preserve the status quo. Mr Cox: What is the point of a certificate? It is not going to be challenged in a court, because the Government and this House will instruct the courts not to look at it. The point of the certificate is merely to express in writing the Speaker’s view that something had been a motion of confidence. If he does not issue a certificate, it is plainly the case that he has reached the view that it is not a motion of confidence. However, it is highly unlikely that the mere fact that a Speaker had produced that view but not committed it to a piece of paper would induce the courts to enter that territory and issue what used to be called a writ of mandamus—it is now called a mandatory order—to force him to do so. I find that improbable and implausible. I hope that the Minister will draw some comfort from that, but he should not draw complete comfort from it, because the mere fact
Page 1 and 2: Wednesday Volume 519 1 December 201
Page 3 and 4: 801 1 DECEMBER 2010 802 House of Co
Page 5 and 6: 805 Oral Answers 1 DECEMBER 2010 Or
Page 13 and 14: 821 1 DECEMBER 2010 822 Point of Or
Page 15 and 16: 825 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term Parl
Page 17 and 18: 829 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 1 D
Page 31: 857 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 1 D
Page 47 and 48: 889 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy
Page 49 and 50: 893 National Policy Statements 1 DE
Page 67 and 68: 929 1 DECEMBER 2010 930 always be f
Page 69 and 70: 933 Libel Law 1 DECEMBER 2010 Libel
Page 71 and 72: 937 Libel Law 1 DECEMBER 2010 Libel
Page 73: 941 Deferred Division 1 DECEMBER 20
Page 76 and 77: 271WH Candour in Health Care 1 DECE
Page 82 and 83:
283WH Candour in Health Care 1 DECE
Page 84 and 85:
287WH Candour in Health Care 1 DECE
Page 86 and 87:
291WH 1 DECEMBER 2010 PACE (Stop an
Page 88 and 89:
295WH PACE (Stop and Search) 1 DECE
Page 90 and 91:
299WH 1 DECEMBER 2010 HIV 300WH HIV
Page 92 and 93:
303WH HIV 1 DECEMBER 2010 HIV 304WH
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
323WH 1 DECEMBER 2010 Metal Theft 3
Page 104 and 105:
327WH Metal Theft 1 DECEMBER 2010 M
Page 106 and 107:
331WH Metal Theft 1 DECEMBER 2010 3
Page 108 and 109:
335WH [Julian Sturdy] Health Care (
Page 110 and 111:
339WH [Paul Burstow] Health Care (N
Page 112 and 113:
75WS Written Ministerial Statements
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
801W Written Answers 1 DECEMBER 201
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 177 and 178:
ORAL ANSWERS Wednesday 1 December 2
Page 179 and 180:
Col. No. JUSTICE—continued Depart
Page 181:
Volume 519 Wednesday No. 82 1 Decem
show all

here - United Kingdom Parliament

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?