International Development

Debate between Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question. The UK is blessed with the sheer breadth and diversity of organisations representing civil society, and chief among them is our network of churches. We are committed to working in partnership with a whole range of civil society organisations, including from the UK and beyond. I am very keen to hear the examples the right reverend Prelate cited and very happy to have that discussion on the specifics.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, the volcano in Tonga demonstrated the vulnerabilities of island nations in the Pacific—as indeed, in a different way, has the Chinese Government’s intervention in the Solomon Islands. Will my noble friend the Minister say that the international development strategy will give an enhanced priority to island nations in the Pacific, when it is published?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My noble friend makes an important point. Covid exposed the vulnerabilities of those small island developing states, in much the way that climate change, in the longer term, is exposing the vulnerabilities of small island states and small island developing states. So, yes, the answer is that we are increasing our emphasis on, and will boost our support for, small island developing states. Part of this is the Indo-Pacific tilt, which noble Lords have heard a great deal about. Equally, we will be raising our aspirations towards and support for the Caribbean, through overseas territories and beyond, for precisely the reasons my noble friend addresses.

Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park and Lord Lansley

Monday 27th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith]

My right hon. Friend’s point goes to the heart of our debate because it deals with a much more profound concern than those three technical points with which I have attempted to deal. This is the line in the sand on which we will need to decide today. It relates to the fear that elected representatives could be unfairly hounded from office—kicked out because of how they voted on issues such as gay marriage, the badger cull or HS2. It is the idea that the mere existence of recall would make Members nervous about expressing themselves on controversial issues, and that rich and powerful vested interests could chase from Parliament those who dare to stand up against them.

[Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Zac Goldsmith]

Those fears, however sincere, are misguided, and I want to explain why before I take any further interventions.

First, on a technical level, the numbers make such a thing virtually impossible. To reiterate, under my proposals, no Member could be recalled unless 50% plus one of his or her constituents voted for that recall, so there would be no question of a minority hounding an MP out of office—unlike with the Government’s plans, under which, bizarrely, 10% of constituents could throw out their MP, even if the other 90% absolutely adored them—and no Member could even face a full recall vote unless 20% of electors, or roughly 14,000 people, made the effort to go in person to a town hall, within a limited time frame, to sign a petition asking for one. We heard last week from hon. Members who had received 500 e-mails about badger culls and 400 e-mails about equal marriage, but those figures of 400 and 500 would be nowhere near enough to topple an MP, to trigger a referendum, or even to get to the point of having a recall petition. Those numbers are pitifully small compared with those required to clear the hurdles even to instigate the process that I am describing. What is more, those letters that MPs receive are often online and in template form; they can be sent at the mere click of a mouse. We are talking about a completely different scenario.

It is no coincidence that many of the Members who have unfairly faced the greatest difficulty during this Parliament, the very people whom the critics of recall might imagine to be the most vulnerable to attack, have put their names to my amendments, and they were the first to do so—my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and for Meriden (Mrs Spelman). They did so because they know that the existence of recall is the best possible way of challenging a noisy minority of critics either to put up or shut up. They know that when a recall petition fails to materialise, a Member will be able to turn to his or her tormentors and say, “The silent majority does not share your view.”

Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith]

The regulations we are using for those who sign the recall petition are exactly the same as those proposed by the Government. I do not want to mislead the House, but my belief is that names and addresses would not be published, and that this would be an anonymous process. The recall would need to be verified by the returning officer, but names would not be publicly available. The name of the person who initiates the 5% stage and the notice of intent to recall would be made public, however, as would the description. I think that is right for a number of reasons, including that there would be a person to whom the authorities could go if the 5% stage was fraudulent—if there were duplicate signatures or if children or people from other constituencies were asked to sign. It is much easier to attach legal responsibility to a named individual, as opposed to something entirely anonymous.

In responding to interventions I think I have described the process—I hope so; I am slightly lost—and I was beginning to describe what genuine recall would look like: the 5% of constituents; then the 20% at the business end, the 14,000 people going to the town hall and signing. If that 20% is met, the bell would be rung and a recall referendum would be announced. That would be a simple yes or no, where a majority—not a vexatious minority—of an MP’s constituents would be required to boot them out in order to trigger the next stage, which is a by-election.

[Mr Lansley]

As I understand it, my hon. Friend’s alternative approach would enable a recall petition to be triggered for any reason. Will he explain at what point somebody who might be the subject not of a political complaint, but of allegations relating to their personal affairs, their conduct in this House, or conduct that might be the subject of a criminal investigation, would be subject to a petition? How would he prevent a petition from being triggered in circumstances where no allegation had been proven against that person?

[Zac Goldsmith]

One supporter of the amendments that will be tabled is my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), whose circumstances match closely those just described. I hope that he speaks at some point in the debate—I do not see him here. He chose to support the amendments because he was reassured by provisions in them that once the judicial process begins, the recall process would be suspended. It would not be possible to seek to recall a Member once such a process had begun, until it had concluded. I think that is right, and there was an overwhelming consensus that that is right among the 40,000 people or so who responded to the survey. The measure would provide the protection that is required.

To reach its logical conclusion, before getting to the by-election the process would require an absolute minimum of five and a half months. This process would not happen over a weekend, and five and a half months would also allow Members to make the case to their constituents in a way that they could not in a short period of time. That is another reason why my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) —he has had similar experiences that I do not need to rehearse because everybody knows about them—is very much a supporter of the Bill. He feels that the five-month process was far longer than he would have required to engage with his constituents and make the case. The same is true of two other Members of the House who have had difficulties in their lives and who began the debate very much in opposition to recall. They now both support the amendments because they feel that they will get a fairer trial from their constituents than they ever would from social media, the mainstream media, or from a standard committee of parliamentarians, susceptible and fragile as we all are to tremendous pressures from newspapers and social media. The thresholds and protections are there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

It is not that Members have something to fear from participation in our democracy—far from it. I believe completely in the wisdom of the masses, but we have to recognise when and how that is properly to be tested in the formal sense. We are a representative democracy, and we increasingly change the character of our democracy anyway. The referendum is a participatory democratic vehicle. We have used it more, and it is likely to be with us for the future, but only in specific circumstances. That illustrates the nature of the constitutional question at the heart of the potential amendment to the Bill.

Shifting to a recall process is not about addressing the individual behaviour of Members—it is much more likely to be used to try to influence the policies of political parties, of Members of Parliament, or of the Government. It would relate to particular individual issues, unlike a general election. As other hon. Members have said very forcefully, a general election is a vital moment in a representative democracy, because people take the whole presentation of party and candidate and consider it in the round. The recall mechanism is designed to enable the public to intervene in and, notwithstanding what the decision in a general election might have been, to impact directly on an individual decision on an individual policy issue.

[Zac Goldsmith]

My right hon. Friend is describing Parliament as if it were made up of hundreds of free spirits whose decisions might be corrupted by the pressure brought about by recall, but surely he realises—in fact, I know that he knows this—that the pressure applied by party hierarchies through the Whips is on a dramatically different scale from the tiny pressure that might be felt as a consequence of this remote and unlikely threat of a three-line whip that constituents might find themselves holding from time to time. There is no comparison—surely my right hon. Friend understands that. Most Members do exactly what they are told by the Whips for 99.9%—sometimes 100%—of the time.

[Mr Lansley]

I am quite old fashioned: Members would have to look quite far back to find a point at which I did not vote in accordance with the Whip. I think that the last time I defied the Whip was on the question of same-sex adoption rules.

I see part of my role as having been elected as a Conservative. A number of Members have said, perfectly reasonably, that we are primarily and overwhelmingly elected—the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has accepted this—on a party rather than an individual basis. I do not see that as meaning that individual Members of Parliament should not have a conscience or be able to exercise their judgment, because they owe that to their constituents. They will have to come to a judgment on great matters of conscience that are relevant to their constituency. That was true on Iraq: I did not vote for the invasion, even though it was my party’s policy to do so. To suggest, however, that we should behave as individuals outside party discipline is nonsense, because the whole system will begin to break down if we go in that direction.

The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park was slightly the other way around. He said that we all behave in the way the Whips tell us, but this has been a more rebellious Parliament—for good or ill—than ever before. I am not sure whether that is a good basis for the argument in favour of recall, because Members clearly feel that they can respond to their conscience and their constituents without the need for a recall mechanism.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) has suggested that if we took the Whips out of the process of deciding whether a Member should be suspended from this House—actually, I do not think that the Whips are part of that process— that would somehow relieve us of the impact of the Whips controlling our behaviour. The recall mechanism proposed as an alternative to this Bill, however, is a greater risk to Members. If a Member were subject to an allegation—a serious allegation, but not a criminal one—that threatened their reputation and position in the constituency, it is clear that they would then be subject to a notice of intent and at risk of a recall petition. The situation would develop rapidly and the question for their party would then be whether it supported them or not.

The hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell) mentioned Ian Gibson, who accused his party of abandoning him. The most dangerous thing for a Member is to be abandoned when they are at risk of having to stand in a by-election in their constituency. If the party takes the Whip away from a Member, they would, in effect, have no chance in a by-election—unless they were in a very strong position—and they would be undermined. The power of the Whips as to whether a Member has the Whip—and, therefore, their power over that Member’s position in an election—would be unchanged by this or any other recall Bill. The power of the Whips is often exaggerated, but in so far as it exists, it would be unchanged by the recall mechanisms, whatever they might be.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park and Lord Lansley

Thursday 18th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I explained in response to the shadow Leader of the House how I feel about this. It is all very well Labour Members trying to make political capital out of this, but we support the police. We are getting on with that job, and the Chief Whip is getting on with that job and doing a grand job in doing so.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

More or less everyone, whether opponent or advocate of the third runway, agrees that delaying the decision until after the election is both cynical and disruptive. Will the Leader of the House allow us time to debate the timing of the Davies review?

[Mr Lansley]

Clearly, my hon. Friend may seek opportunities for a debate, but it would be inappropriate for the Government to do so when we are in the midst of the further review undertaken by Howard Davies, which will provide an interim report next year and a final report in 2015. As my hon. Friend and the whole House knows, these are immensely complicated issues that it is not easy to resolve in a short period of time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Cases of blood poisoning from E. coli have increased by nearly 400% in the past 20 years, and E. coli resistance to antibiotics is almost certainly linked to record levels of antibiotic usage on factory farms. By over-using antibiotics we risk ruining for future generations one of the great discoveries of our species. Will the Department put pressure on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs finally to take that issue seriously?

[Mr Lansley]

I understand the issues. Indeed, I was interested to see analysis some years ago of the extent of antibiotic resistance in hospitals in the Netherlands. Resistance was clearly much more prevalent in parts of Friesland where there was much greater antibiotic usage in farming. I therefore completely understand, and my colleagues in DEFRA understand this too. Just as we are looking for the responsible and appropriate prescribing of antibiotics in the health service, my colleagues feel strongly about the proper use of antibiotics in farming.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

No, they will not. We are making very clear our determination to ring-fence public health budgets so that prevention does not suffer, as it did under the hon. Gentleman’s Government. In 2005-06, the first things to disappear as a consequence of financial pressures were the public health budgets and public health staffing. We will not allow that to happen.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to ending mixed-sex wards, but does the Secretary of State agree that it is both unnecessary and extreme to extend that policy to children’s wards and to enforce it with the threat of fines?

[Mr Lansley]

I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s point, and the rules we have set out for the NHS are very clear. We are also clear that we will ensure, through the NHS, that people have access to the privacy and dignity they have a right to expect, contrary to what the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) has said. She said that as long as they get the treatment through the NHS, it does not matter whether they are in mixed-sex accommodation, but that is not our policy. It does matter, and we will enforce it.