Privileges Committee Special Report

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ms Harman]

Perhaps I may reiterate that we are not saying that the Committee is immune. We are saying that it is evident that any Member of the House can challenge the appointment to the Committee of any member of the Committee, which frequently happens; that any Member of the House can challenge a reference to the Privileges Committee, and that, too, does happen; and that Members can challenge the terms of reference to the Committee and raise concerns about the procedure. But what Members cannot do is say that something is a witch hunt and a kangaroo court, and that there is collusion; impugn the integrity of the individual members of the Committee; and also undermine the standing of the Committee, because that is undermining the proceedings of the House. If hon. Members are not sure what “impugn” means, they can look at “Erskine May”, which goes into it in great detail—

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Lady is being continually interrupted, but may I ask her for some clarity on the point she is making? She has mentioned impugning the integrity of members of the Committee in part of the motion, with which I have considerable sympathy. I just want to understand this point. I do not suggest that this has happened here or at any time in the past, but she will recognise that it is conceivable that it would be right to impugn the integrity of a member of the Committee, or of more than one of its members, if there were evidence to do so. May I just be clear that what this motion should be taken to mean is that someone should not impugn the integrity of members of the Committee while an inquiry is ongoing? If there is evidence to do so later, there are mechanisms by which we can do so. We should be clear, should we not, that what this motion means is that while an inquiry is ongoing, it is wrong to impugn the integrity of any member of the Committee?

[Ms Harman]

That is absolutely right, and that is so that the Committee can do its business properly, as mandated by the House, as is the case with the Standards Committee. We cannot have a situation where Members are reluctant to serve on the Committee because, as soon as they undertake an inquiry, it is open season on them. We cannot have a situation where the outcome is based on pressure and lobbying, rather than the gathering and consideration of the evidence.

The motion does not create any new categories of contempt, nor does it extend what can be regarded as contempt. It simply makes it explicit that the focused, time-limited protection that the House has already made explicit for standards cases is the same for privilege cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate. I will try not to take too long or to repeat things that have already been said.

It is a great shame that the debate on the Privileges Committee’s fifth report, on Boris Johnson, became largely a debate about the integrity and standing of the Committee itself, rather than just the behaviour of Boris Johnson, which was the subject of the report. I can understand why many Members saw it as such, but it is important to establish in this debate that it is possible and legitimate to be in disagreement with some of the Committee’s conclusions, yet still respect and uphold the Committee’s authority and integrity. I say that because that is exactly the position I took in relation to that report. It must be legitimate to do that if the position is—as it is—that the Committee makes recommendations to the whole House, and the whole House then decides whether to accept them.

The report that we are debating today is entirely about the Privileges Committee’s authority and integrity, and about how that should be upheld. Just as criticism of the Committee’s conclusions can be perfectly legitimate, and just as it is not right to say that any criticism of it is an attack on its authority, so it is not right to say that all attacks on the Committee must be allowable as exercises of free speech. We recognise, do we not, that free speech is sometimes properly restricted in the interests of broader freedoms? That is exactly what we are considering here.

The Committee’s special report makes the strong point that there are legitimate opportunities for Members to oppose a referral of a matter to the Committee in the first place—as has been observed, in the case of Boris Johnson nobody did, not even Boris Johnson. The Committee is also right to say that criticism of its conclusions is perfectly valid, as is a decision not to support those conclusions. What is not valid is to attack or to seek to influence or undermine a Committee that this House has charged with an inquiry while that inquiry is ongoing.

[Karen Bradley]

My right hon. and learned Friend allows me to make a point that I have just considered as we have been debating. If this was a criminal trial, it would be sub judice and Members of Parliament would not be allowed to comment on it. Perhaps we should think of the Committee as something analogous to that—a quasi-judicial progress in which Members can complete their work without influence from other Members, while proper processes are still available for Members to make representations.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Yes, I understand entirely the point my right hon. Friend makes. But there are, of course, significant differences between the work done by the Committee and the work of a court. It comes back to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg), which I enjoyed too much to interrupt. It seemed to me that the point he was making about Lord Hoffmann also bears some scrutiny in this respect. Courts are decision-making bodies. The Privileges Committee is not a decision-making body. The House of Commons as a whole is the decision-making body. There is therefore a difference between the way the Privileges Committee operates and the way in which a court operates. Where I do agree with my right hon. Friend is that it is important to the integrity of the Committee’s investigation that Members of this House, having delegating authority to that Committee to do the work, do not seek to derail it while it happens. That does not mean that they are not entitled to criticise any conclusions that the Committee may reach, and nor is it inappropriate, as I have done myself, for a Member not to agree with the conclusions the Committee has reached.

[Lia Nici]

My right hon. and learned Friend is making a very interesting point. Does he not therefore think that there is some form of contempt when persons who had sight of the report and decided, before the report came to this House and was published, to leak it to a Guardian reporter?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I certainly do not think that material of that kind should be leaked to newspapers before it is discussed in this House. I have no knowledge of the facts of who did what, but I agree with my hon. Friend that there should be no leaking of that kind.

We can only, in the context of this debate, discuss the motion before us. If for nothing other than novelty’s sake, perhaps I should speak a little bit about the motion. The Committee makes a good argument that, given there is little material difference, either in process or in the potential consequences for a Member being investigated, between privilege cases on one hand and standards cases on the other, the protection that this House gives to the Privileges Committee and the Standards Committee in the exercise of their duties should be the same. That is a good point, but I think it is also worth noting that the motion does not quite achieve that equality. For standards matters, as is quoted in the special report, the code of conduct states that there must be no lobbying of members of the Committee. There is no mention in the code of conduct in that regard of intimidation, or of impugning the integrity of the Committee, as there is in this motion.

Two questions surely arise. First, should those additional considerations of intimidation and impugning the integrity of the Committee be included? Secondly, if so, should they not be included in relation to standards matters also? On the first, it should not really be necessary to say that intimidation is unacceptable, but it surely cannot be wrong to say it, so I completely support its inclusion in the motion.

As for impugning the integrity of the Committee, as I mentioned in an intervention on the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), it must be a possibility that the integrity of a future Committee—not, of course, this Committee or any previous Committee—could be impugned. The Committee cannot be invulnerable to challenge and criticism, if that criticism is merited. But were that to be the case, as Members of this House we have the right to raise our concerns in debates about the Committee’s recommendations and about any allegations about another Member’s integrity. Members of the Privileges Committee, or not, may well raise themselves the sorts of standards and privileges matters that should be the subject of separate investigations. With that clarity that the impugning of the Committee’s integrity, if any, is not appropriate while an inquiry is under way, again that seems to me a sensible inclusion.

On the second question, the position should surely be equivalent for standards and privileges. Although I fully subscribe to the view, expressed by many, that we really need to move on from this, I am afraid that on another day we will probably at least have to return to the question of whether we need to improve the language on the protections we offer to the Standards Committee, so that it can match this motion, which I hope the House will pass this evening. As others have said, I hope it will pass without a vote, but if it does not, I shall vote in favour of it.

Business of the House

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that. I know that it is incredibly important to give good notice not just for allocating time but of when that will be so that his Committee can plan. I am pushing to be able to give him some information in very short order.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to her new responsibilities. I welcome, too, that at the last Prime Minister’s questions, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed that the Government would be bringing back the Online Safety Bill. I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House two things. First, can she make sure that that happens urgently? The Bill has been carried over once already and there is a considerable need to get on with it. Secondly, without wishing to cut across the first point, can she make sure that if the “tweaks” to the Bill that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to are more than cosmetic, hon. Members in this House can see them before the Bill goes to the other place?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for raising those two important points. I know that the new Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is looking with great urgency at the legislation she wants to bring forward. She will have heard his remarks today, but I shall also write to raise those issues and to ask her to get in touch with him, as he is very knowledgeable about such matters.

Business of the House

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thought you would, yes.

[Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) [V]]

Returning to the issue of overseas aid and the target, is it not the case that the Government are doing one of two things? Either they are seeking to change that statutory target without parliamentary approval, in which case, although I would be the last person to ask the Government to disclose their own legal advice, they will have to explain why legal opinions that say that is unlawful are wrong, as I for one, do not believe they are; or alternatively, they are making use of provisions in the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015, which set that target in statute, that allow it to be missed in exceptional circumstances.

Those are two different things and I am not clear, from the pronouncements of various Ministers, which of the two is Government policy. Surely my right hon. Friend accepts that the House is entitled to absolute clarity on which of the two it is. If the Government are really proposing to change primary legislation, is it not incumbent on them to seek parliamentary support for that, rather than expect Parliament to use a device such as estimates in order to discuss it? If, on the other hand, the Government are missing the target but not changing it, then we need a statement to explore how compliance with the target will be restored.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the law that relates to the 0.7% target, which requires that at the end of the financial year where the target is missed a statement should be laid before Parliament. The law will be followed.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who deserves huge credit for moving this agenda on in the way it should have been, and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), to whose amendment I will return.

First, I declare an interest as a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Although the Committee takes no collective view on the specific questions put in the motions before us, it undoubtedly welcomes the determination of complaints against Members of this House, particularly serious ones, by a body that is wholly independent of it. I have spoken to my Committee colleague, the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), who cannot participate in this debate, and I know that she shares the views I am about to express.

I support the establishment of the independent expert panel and its determination of these cases, but it is right, as the Leader of the House said, that as a matter of constitutional principle the act of suspending or expelling a Member of this House can only be done by the House itself. There must therefore be a vote on the use of the most severe sanctions.

I am not, however, persuaded that there should be even the prospect of a debate about the sanctions, and I therefore declare my second interest as a former practitioner in the criminal courts, where I took part in a large number of sentencing hearings, which is in effect what we are discussing here. The panel would return a verdict, and we as the House of Commons would consider whether to impose the penalty that the panel had recommended.

[Alberto Costa]

My right hon. and learned Friend uses an excellent example, but in that example he must also accept that there is an appellate structure, which is being denied to MPs and only MPs in this proposal.

[Jeremy Wright]

I absolutely understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, which he has made before in this debate. I only say to him that he may find less comfort in his argument than he thinks, because as a distinguished lawyer he will know that the courts are extremely reluctant to involve themselves in the processes and penalties imposed by this place. It may be that the courts will not be as much help to him as he thinks.

I was going to go on to say that sentencing hearings can only be effective and fair if we have two sets of information: first, the mitigation available to the defendant, but secondly, information about the seriousness of the offence. More recently, the criminal courts have access to a third set of information, which is the effect of the offence upon the victim.

For good and sensible reasons, the Government are seeking in motion 6 to exclude from the debates we are considering not just the name of the complainant, but also

“Details of any investigation or specific matters considered”

by the panel. That is doubtless correct, but it would make it extremely difficult to assess the seriousness of the offence, and we would—again, quite properly—have no information at all on the effect of the offence on the victim.

I do not then see how we could do justice to what would effectively be a sentencing process in such a debate, and I do not therefore see what good having such a debate would do. It would certainly give rise to the risks that others in this debate have already set out, without deriving significant benefit. For that reason, I will be supporting the amendment of the hon. Member for Rhondda.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Proceedings during the Pandemic

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore). I entirely agree with the Government that remote scrutiny is inferior to Members of Parliament being here to do it directly. That is no criticism of those who have worked very hard to make a virtual Parliament work at all, but it is the reality of the ways in which Bills and Ministers are most effectively scrutinised. It is also to the Government’s credit that they are seeking to restore the most effective scrutiny of themselves. In relation to those of us who can do so, I understand their preference that we conduct our scrutiny from here, but this debate and the amendments to the Government’s motion are really about those colleagues who cannot be here, and specifically those who cannot be here because the Government have, for good and sensible reasons, told them that they should not be. For those colleagues, there is a strong case for preserving some means of virtual participation in our proceedings. I am grateful to have heard what the Leader of the House has already said about that, but I look forward to hearing more.

Surely the most fundamental part of our job is casting our votes. In that regard we should be most concerned with the most fundamental principles, and surely the most fundamental principle of all is that our votes in this place count equally, in our roles as representatives of our constituents. It cannot be right to exclude from decision making any Member against their will, unless it is done for reasons of principle or because it is unavoidable. Excluding those who would be here, were it not for the Government’s instruction, cannot be right on principle. This is not the House taking disciplinary action against those who have broken rules—quite the reverse—and neither it seems to me is it unavoidable. Imperfect though of course it is, we do have a system of remote voting that we have tested and used over the past few weeks. Of course, it should be used only for this period of restriction, but while that period continues it remains the only way that those excluded from this place can vote. I do not believe, I am afraid, that the Government’s solution is satisfactory. Pairing and slipping are exclusions from voting for which a Member has volunteered in most cases. The Members we are talking about today are not all volunteering to be excluded and to exclude their constituents from the process of legislative decision making. They are being excluded through no fault or wish of their own.

[Karen Bradley]

I apologise for intervening again, but my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) referred to me earlier as letting the genie out of the bottle. My point was that the public expect us to vote. The public expect us to be here. The public are looking at our voting record. We will be judged on our voting record. To say, “I took the decision at that point to allow myself to be paired” or that, “I was not able to do anything else other than be paired because of my medical condition,” will probably not be sufficient for many of our voters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes, I understand my right hon. Friend’s point, and I was going to go on to say that, although I understand the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), we are not, of course, as has just been said in the debate, dealing only with those who are ill. Some people are not ill but are being required—again I stress—by Government instruction to keep themselves away from this place. For those reasons, and with considerable regret, I cannot support the Government’s approach on voting, and I will support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley).