Recall of MPs Bill
Debate between Thomas Docherty and Julian Huppert(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Huppert
We have put in provisions so that, in the event of criminal proceedings, they would take precedence and the recall process would be stayed while that was happening, so I think we have addressed that. As I will go on to say, there is a very similar model already in use in the US and that does not seem to have the same sorts of problems that the hon. Gentleman describes.
On other changes we have made, the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and for Liverpool, West Derby were concerned about a phrase we included relating to gross dereliction of duty as an MP perhaps being considered as misconduct in public office. They both highlighted the point that there is no definition of our duties as Members of this House. We accept that point and have removed it from the revised amendment. However, I think there is general agreement in the House that there should be some provision in the code of conduct to deal with that. The well-known case of the Member of Parliament who spent most of his time running a pub in Ireland is not one that I think any of us would consider acceptable or wish to see emulated. We should try to ensure that the code of conduct is updated so that, for example, an MP who chose not to attend the House for months or years on end with no good reason, could not continue in that way. Local councils have a rule that councillors have to attend a meeting within six months, with a provision for extensions when there is good reason, for example illness.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman touches on non-attendance. Labour Members supported the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, which makes attendance compulsory at least once a Session. What does he say to those MPs from Northern Ireland who choose not to take their seats, but whose electorate understand fully that that is their principled position?
Dr Huppert
First, just because somebody can be recalled does not mean they would automatically be recalled. How to phrase that in the code would be an interesting question. Trying to have repeated recalls of those Members would be a somewhat futile and repetitive exercise, as it was with the case of Charles Bradlaugh, the Member for Northampton. He was elected three times as an atheist and refused to take a religious oath. The rules were eventually changed because it was made quite clear that his electorate wanted him. I think that, in the case of the Members the hon. Gentleman is referring to, there would have to be some sort of accommodation that there would not be recall elections for that process.
Dr Huppert
It still starts with 500 people and ends with 15% of the public making the decision. We have to strike a balance—we discussed this in Committee, and I do not want to give a blow-by-blow account of that very long debate—over whether there should be any constraints at all and whether there can be any trivial or vexatious cases. That is the difference.
In Minnesota, several cases have been deemed to be unreasonable. The two most recent cases involved State Representatives Ward and Radinovich, both of whom supported same-sex marriage against the wishes of their constituents, and in both cases, the court concluded that it did not constitute malfeasance, saying:
“Constituent disagreement with how their elected representative exercised discretion, through public statements made or votes taken, does not equate to malfeasance by the representative.”
That is surely a principle the House would want to stick to.
In 2001, the state attorney-general did not take steps to ensure that a ban on sodomy was not struck down—again there were complaints, but the court did not conclude that he had failed to do his job; and in 1999, Governor Jesse Ventura was accused of having done well out of his book by virtue of being governor, but again the court felt the accusation was unsubstantiated and struck it out.
Thomas Docherty
It has been brought to my attention that earlier today the hon. Gentleman published an article on Lib Dem Voice about his test stating:
“This test of “reasonable to believe” puts the burden clearly on the MP to disprove beyond doubt the allegations against him or her in the first instance.”
Now, he takes a clear and principled stance on terrorism legislation, so some of us are surprised he is reversing the burden here. Is he not contradicting himself by leaving it up to the MP to disprove the allegation, rather than the petitioners to prove it?
Dr Huppert
I will have to check the wording of the article—[Interruption.] Sorry, I am not challenging the hon. Gentleman; it is possible, in writing it so speedily, that I miswrote it, because that is certainly not what it ought to say. That is not how it ought to work, and if I wrote that, it was my mistake and I apologise to him and anyone else who read it. I will check it as soon as I have a chance.
The system in Minnesota, which is similar to what we are suggesting, seems to work. Our proposal would protect MPs from trivial recall petitions, but allow the public a route, not mediated by the House, to recall MPs who have committed misconduct. I hope, therefore, that the House will support new clauses 2 and 3, along with the consequential amendments, when I put them later today.
I wish to turn briefly to the other amendments in the group, many of which are in my name and that of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and others.
Thomas Docherty
I want to set out Labour’s position on the principle of recall and the reasoning behind the amendments that have been tabled by me, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and others. I will then set out Labour’s views on the new clauses and amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). Finally, I will deal with the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan).
I want to begin by again placing on record Labour’s support for the principle of recall when an elected representative’s conduct falls well below the standards that Parliament and their constituents expect. That is why our 2010 manifesto promised to introduce recall legislation and why we supported the Bill on Second Reading. We will support it again on Third Reading.
However, we continue to believe that the Bill could be strengthened. We have tabled a number of amendments to that end, and I am grateful that they have attracted cross-party support. We discussed the principles behind each of them in Committee, and the hon. Member for Cambridge has already mentioned them briefly, so I will not detain the House by rehearsing all the arguments or going into unnecessary detail.
Amendment 14 seeks significantly to lower the threshold for the period of suspension relating to the point at which a Member of Parliament may be subject to a recall petition. As it stands, the Bill states that the second recall condition is that a Member must be suspended from the House for 21 sitting days to reach the threshold. We believe that that sets the bar too high. For example, neither of the MPs who were suspended during the cash-for-questions scandal would have been subject to potential recall using that threshold. By reducing it to 10 days, as we propose, Members such as those and many others who have been suspended over the years would be captured by the revised mechanism.
However, we recognise the genuine concern that Ministers flagged up during the Bill’s previous stages, which has been echoed by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), that a Member who had twice been named by the Speaker for unparliamentary activity or protest could fall foul of the lower threshold. That is why we have inserted the provision that the suspension must be the result of a report into an MP’s behaviour by the Standards Committee, although it is for the House as a whole to determine the length of a suspension.
Our amendment 24 deals with Members who have been convicted of fiddling their Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority-funded parliamentary allowances. Some may be curious as to why we are proposing that the recall process should apply even where a non-custodial sentence is handed out. We believe that a flagrant misuse of public funds by MPs is simply unacceptable. Those of us who were not MPs in the previous Parliament fully understand the public’s anger at that whole sorry saga. As the Leader of the Opposition has highlighted, the public’s confidence in our political system has been severely strained by the events of the past few years. We hope that this amendment signals to the public that Parliament is listening and changing.
Dr Huppert
The other point the hon. Gentleman could make is that his party’s manifesto specified that recall would be only for MPs found responsible for financial misconduct. So his proposal is entirely in keeping with his manifesto, as our proposal is with our manifesto commitment. Indeed, the surprise is that none of the major parties had something analogous to that which seems to be pushed by so many.
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for our amendment. I would not say it was only about that condition, but we did specifically state that it was grounds for recall, which is why we supported the Bill on Second Reading and will do so on Third Reading.
Thomas Docherty
We absolutely agree on the point about IPSA expenses. To provide justice to our constituents, it is a relatively uncontentious tweak to the Bill to say that if a Member of Parliament were convicted of serious wrongdoing they should not be able to evade natural justice just because their offence was carried out before Royal Assent. Let me now make a little more progress.
We see these three amendments as sensible steps towards improving the Bill and significantly strengthening the rights of constituents to hold their Members of Parliament to account. I am grateful to Members from the other parties and to those on the Government Benches who have signed our amendments or who have indicated that they will support them tonight. I hope that when the Minister responds he will confirm that he, too, supports our proposals and that he will encourage all his colleagues to endorse them so that they can be carried without a Division.
I now turn to the new clauses and amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Cambridge and for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). I want to deal first with new clause 2 and the amendments relating to it. As I said in Committee, we support the principles behind the idea. We agree with the hon. Gentlemen on the idea of an independent mechanism when it can be demonstrated that wrongdoing has occurred. Like the hon. Gentlemen, we entered into talks with Ministers in good faith to make it work. However, as has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Cambridge, despite lots of warm words from Ministers the Government have walked away without fully engaging. At no point did Ministers proffer alternative wording, which will of course leave many wondering whether parliamentary counsel were ever engaged properly. The Government Chief Whip who, yet again, is nowhere to be seen, seems to have decided that this is all too much effort.
That is no way for the Government to behave, not only after giving clear assurances in Committee but on a Bill that was, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, a key plank of the coalition agreement. The result of the Government’s behaviour is that we are left with a new clause that is, by the admission of the hon. Member for Cambridge, not in a fit and proper state. I appreciate that its promoters have tried as hard as they can to get these principles into a workable state, but despite their best efforts the amendments are simply not there.
Dr Huppert
Let me be clear that I have never said that I do not think the new clause is in a fit and proper state. There were some problems with the previous version, but I think that it is now in a good state. I dare say, however, that their lordships could tweak it.
Thomas Docherty
I therefore refer the hon. Gentleman to new clause 3, which places the burden of proof on the Member of Parliament. Again, let me quote what he has said. Although I accept what he has said about no longer seeing that quotation as accurate in terms of what he was trying to achieve, it reflects what new clause 3 says. He said:
“This test of “reasonable to believe” puts the burden clearly on the MP to disprove beyond doubt the allegations against him or her in the first instance. It would mean a high chance of success for petitioners unless their evidence was very weak indeed.”
The hon. Gentleman has already clarified that he does not support that, so if he does not support the intent behind new clause 3 I would gently suggest that the best thing would be for the new clause to be rewritten.
Dr Huppert
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out the errors in what I wrote on Lib Dem Voice and he will be pleased to know that it has been corrected, but in such a way that one can still see the original. I am not trying to hide the fact that I made an error. The bit that was not fit and proper was that aspect of the article on Lib Dem Voice and the new clause is still quite clear. The “reasonable to believe” test is a fairly common and standard one.
Thomas Docherty
Perhaps I can return to that point in a moment or two.
Let me explain what we see as the problems with new clauses 2 and 3 and the associated amendments. The court process can be started comparatively easily as 500 signatures would not be difficult to obtain and a rich group or a rich individual who wanted to attack a Member of Parliament could pay for lawyers once those signatures had been obtained to mount a court application that would be both costly and distracting for the MP to fight. New clause 2 does not require the case to be proved, as the hon. Member for Cambridge has admitted, beyond reasonable doubt or even to some lower standard, only that the court has “reason to believe” the Member of Parliament is guilty of misconduct in public office. The clause requires only an arguable case and not a proved case, which makes an MP vulnerable to losing in court when the allegations have been proved, to be taken forward.
New clause 2 also sets the standard by reference to the language of the criminal offence of misconduct in public office, which, as the hon. Member for Cambridge admits, is a criminal offence in England but not in Scotland or, I think, in Northern Ireland. If the court concluded that there was reason to believe that a Member of Parliament was guilty of the offence of misconduct in a public office, in addition to the recall petition’s being opened the Member of Parliament would be incredibly vulnerable to prosecution for the criminal offence. A well-funded individual or group could achieve 500 signatures, tie a Member of Parliament down in difficult court proceedings, in which the attackers do not even have to prove their allegation, and, if they succeed in court, subject the Member of Parliament to not only a recall petition, but the possibility of criminal proceedings.
Dr Huppert
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He will be aware, of course, that there is an existing process whereby an individual or group—perhaps well funded—can bring a case to an election court. There is no appeal; there is judicial review. It has far more powers, because it may not only deny a Member their seat, after potentially expensive processes, but ban them from standing for public office, as happened to Phil Woolas, which is a much tougher sanction than that which is proposed here. Is he suggesting that that should also happen, because a large amount of money could be used to challenge an MP who had just been elected, which I think is what he is concerned about?
Thomas Docherty
The difference is that in the Woolas case in 2010 the complainant had to prove not just a level of expectation, but beyond reasonable doubt. There were full court proceedings and it was rightly determined—the hon. Gentleman has mentioned this—that Mr Woolas should be banned from holding office for a period of five years, I think.
Thomas Docherty
Apologies. Those were proper court proceedings that resulted in a verdict. New clause 2 and its associated amendments would simply require a reasonable expectation, which we believe would be an unsatisfactory mechanism at the moment.
The other group of amendments, which centre on amendment 15, would add a further mechanism for the opening of a recall petition: when a Member of Parliament has been convicted of the criminal offence of misconduct in public office. The difference between that gateway and the first gateway—conviction of a criminal offence—is that it is open even if the Member in question is not sent to jail. Although a conviction for that offence would normally follow a prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service, it could follow an incredibly expensive private prosecution, which again would place a Member of Parliament at the mercy of well-funded vested interest groups. There are those who genuinely believe that we should endorse that process, but the Opposition do not wish to see that US-style pact, with well-funded vested interest groups able to recall, tie up and bog down a Member of Parliament for four and a half years of a five-year Parliament.
We are also concerned that that route could be used not only as an alternative to the new clause 2 mechanism, but as a de facto appeal. That is to say, if the Member of Parliament’s opponents do not win on the first attack, they could simply regroup and come back with a private prosecution. Furthermore, that route has no minimum threshold, as it does not require even the 500 signatures that the hon. Gentleman has advocated for new clause 2.
Dr Huppert
I am following carefully what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Could not exactly the same be said of his point about expenses for parliamentarians? There is a similar issue with very specific offences that relate to fundamental aspects of the role, where conviction, even if not imprisonment, has to be taken seriously.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Gentleman leads me perfectly to my final point. Our amendment 24 proposes that a further recall condition should be when a Member of Parliament has been convicted of the offence, as clearly set out in the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, of the misuse of public funds, committing fraud against the public purse, which we believe—I hope that the whole House agrees—is completely incompatible with the role of a Member of Parliament. Some will recall a case in the last Parliament in which a right hon. Member—a shadow Minister—was investigated by the police for having been involved in the leaking of documents from the civil service to the Opposition. If that case had been taken up by the police and resulted in a prosecution, I do not believe, and my colleagues would agree, that the leaking of documents, which we would argue can be seen in the public interest, should have left that Member of Parliament open to recall. As the offence of misuse of public office is so vague, it does not involve the same prescriptive reasoning as the 2009 Act, and it is open to vexatious challenge.
Dr Huppert
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank all the Members in the Chamber.
Clause 19 deals with the performance of the Speaker’s functions by others. The Speaker has a critical role in the recall process. The Bill, as currently drafted, states that the Speaker can appoint somebody to perform those functions. That seems very strange for a number of reasons, so amendment 11 proposes that, rather then the Speaker being able to appoint somebody, the Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, such as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would be the obvious person to take on those responsibilities.
Amendment 12 picks up on the point, made in Committee, that one of the exceptions would be if the Speaker was subject to a recall. In such circumstances it would be odd to expect the Speaker to set in train the process of recalling him or herself, and that raises the question of what would happen if they refused to do so. Would another recall petition be sought against them for failing to fulfil the first?
Amendment 13 is entirely consequential on the other two amendments. I hope that all five amendments will not prove controversial and that the House will support them unanimously. In the interests of time, I will not push any of them to a vote if there is dissent within the House. However, I hope that the House will agree to them so that they can be made to the Bill as minor, technical and corrective measures.
Thomas Docherty
I, too, will be relatively brief. Amendment 9 relates to an issue we discussed in Committee. The Government gave a clear indication to the Committee that they recognised that it would be inappropriate to place wording in primary legislation on which they had not consulted the Electoral Commission. I hope that the Minister will confirm when he responds whether the Government have now consulted the Electoral Commission, as they undertook to do in Committee.
I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that, having had a hat trick of wins earlier this evening, we should not press our luck tonight. However, we are clear that we do not believe that it is appropriate to have wording in primary legislation that has not been agreed by the Electoral Commission. We will expect the other place to remove that wording if the Government are unable to satisfy this House that they have consulted the Electoral Commission.
Amendment 10 simply rewrites the wording set out in clause 9, as the hon. Member for Cambridge said, and I do not think that it requires further explanation. Amendments 11, 12 and 13 relate to a point that was made during our line-by-line consideration of the Bill. He is absolutely right that it is inappropriate to have ambiguity about what would happen if the Speaker was subject to a recall petition—not least for the benefit of the Speaker. We think that it is correct to state explicitly that the Chairman of Ways and Means or the Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means are the appropriate post-holders in the unlikely event that a recall petition affects the Speaker.
That point was raised with the Government informally, so we hope that the Minister has had a chance to consider it. His previous answer was that the Chair would be vacant because the Speaker would be serving a custodial sentence. However, we have just agreed by an overwhelming majority to make an amendment that will apply this to non-custodial sentences, so that argument no longer holds water. Also, if an MP received a very short sentence, they could be out of custody by the time the recall procedure was initiated.
This is purely a tidying-up exercise and we do not see the point in detaining the House. We are sure that the Minister will have reflected on our previous discussions and will agree to make these minor but necessary changes to the Bill.
Draft Financial Services Bill (Joint Committee)
Debate between Thomas Docherty and Julian Huppert(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thomas Docherty
I obviously look forward to my hon. Friend’s contribution in due course.
I must say that I thought the cracks about monkeys and organ grinders that the hon. Member for Devizes made did nothing to raise the standard of the debate, but as she used to work for the Chancellor of the Exchequer I expected nothing more, because her speeches were never that good when she worked for him. It is important that we look at whether the people who are being put forward in general are of a correct measure. The hon. Member for Warrington South, who I think is now detained elsewhere, asked about the qualifications needed for serving on the Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and I are equally concerned about what qualifications should or may bar an individual Member from serving on the Committee. Having read from cover to cover the Standards and Privileges Committee report, and having read the introduction to the draft Bill prepared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his team about the need for financial probity and for a new set of regulations, I have severe doubts about whether one member of the Committee is adequately suited to the task.
In a week when Parliament has had to deal with some very severe accusations levelled against members of the Government and against members of Her Majesty’s police forces, when we have seen former special advisers being placed under arrest, and when Government Members simply argue, as I have heard them do today, that we will take people on the basis of the assurances they have given although they are under active police investigation, the public will look at this Committee and say that it beggars belief.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
It has been said several times that the past week has seen Parliament at its best. How would the hon. Gentleman describe what he is doing now?
Thomas Docherty
If the hon. Gentleman thinks back over the past 12 months, he will recall that my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) have almost single-handedly ploughed a furrow in highlighting an issue. Government Members heckled and shouted them down, and accused them of launching personal attacks on the Prime Minister.
Armed Forces Bill
Debate between Thomas Docherty and Julian Huppert(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thomas Docherty
I will be brief, as an important set of new clauses are to be discussed next and I know colleagues wish to have a full debate on them.
I have been heartened by some of the Minister’s remarks. I did not agree with all he has said, but he nevertheless offered an eloquent defence of his position. I was particularly heartened by his offering me a meeting with his ministerial colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, and I will be delighted to accept that offer. In turn, I am sure he will be delighted to know that the Defence Committee has decided to undertake a review of the basing decisions in the autumn. I suspect he and his colleagues will therefore eagerly anticipate appearing before the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), who chairs the Select Committee, along with his Select Committee colleagues, including myself.
Based on the assurances I have received and the good debate we have had this evening, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 7
Voluntary discharge of under-18s
‘(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 (c. 52) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 329 (Terms and conditions of enlistment and service), after subsection (3) there is inserted—
“(3A) The regulations shall make provision that any person under the age of 18 shall be entitled to end their service with a regular force by giving not less than 14 days’ notice in writing to their commanding officer, and shall ensure that any person enlisting under the age of 18 is informed of this right when they enlist.”’.—(Dr Huppert.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Huppert
It is a great pleasure to move this amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), who is present. It would allow under-18s to leave the armed forces as of right, if they so wished. There have already been some discussions on this with the Minister, so I shall not detain the Committee for too long. It is an important issue, however, and a number of groups have worked hard, along with my hon. Friend, myself and others, to press for this change. I wish to note in particular the efforts of the Quakers in Britain, especially Michael Bartlet, who has spearheaded much of the awareness-raising that has led to our reaching this point.
The proposal to allow under-18s to leave as of right has also been supported by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I should declare that I was a member of it at the time, which may or may not be coincidental. It gave a clear recommendation that—astonishingly—fits extremely well with the amendment I am now proposing:
“We recommend that a right to discharge for under-18s be established, and that all those recruited under the age of 18 be told of this right.”
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Gentleman has referred several times to under-18s having a right to leave. I had the privilege of serving on the Armed Forces Bill Select Committee and we took some evidence on this matter, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would accept that they do currently have a right to leave, but that the length of notice is different from that which he proposes.
Dr Huppert
They do not have the right to leave before they turn 18. After the first six months, a 17-year-old, or a 16-year-old even, does not have the right to leave. In the case of the Army, they are there for, I believe, six years after they pass that first six months. In practice, that is not necessarily enforced, but that is not the same as their having a right.
Thomas Docherty
I have heard the argument about five or six years before. When personnel turn 18, they have an absolute right to choose to leave at that point. I accept that, perhaps, that is not as well publicised as it might be, but this talk of their being in for five or six years is not entirely accurate.
Dr Huppert
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, but I think he would agree that somebody who joins on their 16th or 17th birthday currently has no right to leave, although in practice they might be allowed to, which is a slightly different issue.
Why is this an issue for under-18s? We have a whole lot of rules for under-18s: we do not allow them to vote—although many of us think that we should because they are adult enough to do that—we do not allow them to have credit cards or to enter into other legal decisions because they are not treated as adults who are able to commit themselves for such a long time; and they cannot bind themselves to a credit agreement to pay a certain sum of money the next month, except in very exceptional circumstances. They can, however, commit themselves to an extended period in the armed forces.
It is quite clear that in many cases they are allowed to leave, even though they do not have that right. It is hard to be sure, however, whether that covers every case of somebody under 18 who wishes to leave. We would not know if they were too scared to ask their commanding officer or if some other social pressures made it hard. We know that there are cases of bullying in the armed forces and although I am sure we all abhor the fact that that goes on, there are a number of such cases and it is hard to know what would happen then.
The situation is unclear, so we proposed an amendment to make it absolutely clear what was and was not allowed. I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the report produced by the Select Committee on the Bill after the amendment was tabled and after a number of discussions, parliamentary questions and so on. He has made a welcome announcement, stating that
“for those under the age of 18, the ability to be discharged will in future be a right up to the age of 18, subject to an appropriate period of consideration or cooling off.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 26WS.]
I want to place on record my thanks to the Minister for taking that step, which is very welcome to a number of the people involved. I have a few specific questions, however, and I hope that he will be able to clarify the situation for me.
First, what is this period of consideration or cooling off and roughly how long would it last? My amendment allowed 14 days’ notice; I suspect he has a different figure in mind and it would be helpful to know what it is. The second part of the JCHR’s report and of the amendment state that any person enlisting under the age of 18 should be informed of their right and I hope the Minister would agree that it would ideal for them to be told that they have it, even though he would hope that many of them would not avail themselves of it. Finally, will he update the Committee on the process as it stands? Has he given instructions that the rule should apply as of now and will people be told that there is this right? He talks about requiring secondary legislation to make such a provision, which I look forward to seeing, but when will such an instrument be laid before the House?