(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:24 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 335 / Noes: 207 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:40 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 222 / Noes: 317 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:53 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 205 / Noes: 326 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:05 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 327 / Noes: 214 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:58 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 241 / Noes: 293 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Evans. The new clause is a straightforward and clear response intended to cure, for the alternative vote referendum, a possible ambiguity in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 framework on the regulation of referendum expenses. It clearly states that the costs of covering and reporting on the referendum in the media are not referendum expenses for the purposes of that Act. That means that those costs will fall outside the regulatory regime that the PPERA puts in place.
I want to be absolutely clear that the new clause does not change the position on the regulation of advertising in the media by campaigning individuals or organisations. Such media costs will continue to be subject to the usual spending restrictions in the 2000 Act. However, we believe it is important to ensure that media outlets are not caught by the spending restrictions in place for the referendum when publishing information about it, since they will play a vital role in building public awareness.
I take this opportunity to thank the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) and the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform for the scrutiny of the Bill that they carried out despite the time available. The Committee’s members tabled a similar amendment, and I am grateful for their focus on the issue. They identified the problem and the potential ambiguity, and argued that it needed to be dealt with. The Committee identified a potential problem with the framework for referendums, as set out in the PPERA. Where there is ambiguity in statute there may be arguments either way, but I accept that on an issue as important as this, the law should be clear. That is why the Government have tabled their own new clause, similar to that tabled by the Committee’s members and identical in its intention. However, I believe that there are sound technical reasons why our version is preferable.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the fact that the Government have tabled the new clause. Broadly speaking, the Minister is absolutely right that it was never anybody’s intention that ordinary newspapers, magazines, television broadcasts and so on should be included in the referendum expenses regime. However, there are some complications because of some of the terms used in the new clause.
I note that the Minister said en passant that the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) managed to come up with a report despite the time available, but of course the lack of availability of time was entirely down to the Minister, not down to anybody else. As the Minister noted, the Committee produced its own version of what a new clause might look like, and a lot of us have been lobbied by different parts of the media in favour of some version or other of an amendment such as this one. The Minister said that the Government’s version was slightly different, and I hope that he will be able to take us through why.
The new clause mentions, first:
“Expenses incurred in respect of the publication of any matter relating to the referendum, other than an advertisement, in…a newspaper or periodical”.
As I understand it, it is remarkably difficult to specify in law what is a newspaper or periodical. So far as I can see, there is no one clear definition of newspaper or periodical. I assume that the Government understand “newspaper or periodical” to be the same, not two separate concepts.
I can find two instances of a definition in statute. The first is the Newspaper Libel and Registration Act 1881, which states:
“The word ‘newspaper’ shall mean any paper containing public news, intelligence, or occurrences, or any remarks or observations therein printed for sale, and published in England or Ireland periodically, or in parts or numbers at intervals not exceeding twenty-six days between the publication of any two such papers, parts, or numbers.
Also any paper printed in order to be dispersed, and made public weekly or oftener,”—
“oftener” is slightly strange language—
“or at intervals not exceeding twenty-six days, containing only or principally advertisements.”
I presume that the Government are not relying on that definition, because it applies only to England and Ireland, which is in a Bill that tried to ensure that all newspapers and periodicals were registered. That registration process no longer exists—now anyone is free to publish a newspaper or a periodical.
The second instance is in section 7(5) of the Defamation Act 1952, which states that
“the expression ‘newspaper’ means any paper containing public news or observations thereon, or consisting wholly or mainly of advertisements, which is printed for sale and is published in the United Kingdom either periodically or in parts or numbers at intervals not exceeding thirty-six days.”
I am sure that keen-eared Members noted that between 1881 and 1952, there was a difference of 10 days in the frequency with which a printed item might be described as a newspaper or a periodical.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
That may have had something to do with Christmas and a monthly publication potentially covering five weeks at that time of year. However, the shadow Minister may have stronger ideas about the reason for that difference—or mistake.
Chris Bryant
It seems slightly odd to go to 36 days because there is no specific definition of the date of publication. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right that if the Christmas edition of a monthly publication is published around 15 November—after doubtless being written around 15 July—there might be more than 26 days between it and the next edition. However, large elements of the Defamation Act have been repealed, although the precise definition of newspaper seems still to exist. The territorial extent of that Act is not only England and Ireland, but Wales and Scotland.
Election law has for some considerable time made allowance for newspapers and periodicals so that, for example, an edition of The Times that advocates people voting Conservative or The Guardian bizarrely supporting the Liberal Democrats in a general election are not suddenly caught for election expenditure. I understand that, but the new clause needs greater clarity, not least because many more people now engage in publication. Under the 1881 Act, people had to be licensed to do that. Today, anybody can publish, and there is no specification in law of the number of copies that must be published, only of the frequency. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary’s Conservative association produces a regular newsletter. Whether it is counted as a newspaper or periodical is of material significance to election expenditure.
I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can first explain his understanding of newspaper or periodical and from where he derives the definition, not least because the new clause does not refer to the derivation of the interpretation.
Secondly, subsection (b) of new clause 19 refers to
“a broadcast made by the British Broadcasting Corporation”
or Channel 4, but Channel 4 is going to be part of the BBC in the near future—
Chris Bryant
Sorry, S4C, not Channel 4. S4C is going to be part of the BBC in the near future. I presume that subsection (b), which might be presumed at a later date to transfer to other referendums, would not be disturbed by the congruence of the two organisations, I think in 2013-14.
Subsection (b) also uses the term “broadcast”, a word that, in legislation, specifically refers to broadcasting from one to many points. That is to say, the broadcaster does not determine the precise number of people who receive a programme, network or channel, as opposed to cable, which has never before been referred to as broadcasting, because it is point-to-point. That is to say, the cable organisation knows exactly where the programme is going, because there is a direct connection between A and B, as opposed to what happens in terrestrial broadcasting, whether digital or otherwise. That is why the Communications Act 2003 has separate provisions for broadcasting and cable. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that when he says “broadcast” he does not just mean broadcasting, but includes cable and the provision of any such programme via any other means.
I ask that because subsection (c) refers explicitly to
“a programme included in any service licensed under Part 1 or 3 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 or Part 1 or 2 of the Broadcasting Act 1996”.
I do not understand why subsection (b) refers to a broadcast—as opposed to either a programme provided by the two organisations listed or one included in any service provided by them—and it contrasts with how subsection (c) has been constructed. In addition, there is an issue relating to the provision of party political broadcasts, because there will be a different level of provision of party election broadcasts in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, as a result of the elections being held there, from that provided in England during the run-up to the referendum and the short campaign for those elections. I suppose that any of the political parties in those areas could decide that it wanted to major on the alternative vote provisions and the referendum in its party election broadcast, and therefore might be considered to be in conflict with the provisions under the terms of the 2000 Act or the Broadcasting Act 1990.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
A party might indeed consider doing that, but would the hon. Gentleman concede that the political reality of the situation is that most parties and combatants in the Scottish and Welsh elections will have better things to do than consider the AV referendum? That further underlines the folly of holding the referendum on the same day as those elections, thereby not giving the issue its proper space in those territories.
Chris Bryant
Indeed. Many of the provisions that we will talk about in the main debate this afternoon relate to the combining of polls, but this is the only point in the debate on the Bill when there can be any discussion about party election broadcasts, because this is the only point in the Bill that they are referred to. All the other elements—how many registers of electors there should be, what colour the ballot papers should be, how many polling cards there should be and so on—are referred to in the new schedules that we will come to a little later, but not broadcasting, which is a reserved responsibility.
The Broadcasting Act 1990 makes it clear that
“any regional Channel 3 licence or licence to provide Channel 4 or 5 shall include—
(a) conditions requiring the licence holder to include party political broadcasts in the licensed service; and
(b) conditions requiring the licence holder to observe such rules with respect to party political broadcasts as the Commission may determine.”
In addition, we specified in section 127 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 that
“(1) A broadcaster shall not include in its broadcasting services any referendum campaign broadcast made on behalf of any person or body other than one designated in respect of the referendum in question under section 108.
(2) In this section, ‘referendum campaign broadcast’ means any broadcast whose purpose (or main purpose) is or may reasonably be assumed to be—
(a) to further any campaign conducted with a view to promoting or procuring a particular outcome in relation to any question asked in a referendum to which this Part applies, or
(b) otherwise to promote or procure any such outcome.”
Mr Mark Field
I agree with what the Government are trying to do in new clause 19; they have taken on board some of the concerns expressed by the Select Committee. However, I want to ask the Minister a question about the increasingly important influence of the new media. Does he not feel—I appreciate it will not apply to this particular referendum—that much of our legislation, particularly that dealing with media comment, is now ripe for a much more radical overhaul? This could be the first referendum in which we see a significant amount of money being spent by online providers trying to put their message across—in both the English and the Welsh language, I suspect—on this issue. Much of the legislation already in place looks more towards 20th-century and perhaps even, in some cases, 19th-century media. Much of the new media will have a greater impact—not just through blogs, but through a whole range of forums coming under the auspices of existing magazines and periodicals—so I would like to know what indications the Government have had about the likely costs and whether they will count towards the amount of election expenditure.
It strikes me that we are now living in a much-changed world. Younger voters in particular are less likely to look at newspapers, periodicals or even the television as the most important mechanism for getting comment on political and other related matters. There is concern that a great deal of our legislation requires a much more radical overhaul than people appear to have in mind. Given the context of where we are today, however, the new clause provides a sensible way forward, taking into account many of the concerns expressed by the all-party group.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) for raising a number of questions. Let me step back a little and explain why we tabled the new clause.
The problem arises from the definition of the word “material” in schedule 13 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The reason for the concern —some media organisations were worried—is that there was some ambiguity about the meaning. We think “material” means leaflets and other campaigning items, but we decided to fix any ambiguity.
The hon. Member for Rhondda asked me why we prefer our new clause to the amendment that the Committee had tabled. That amendment changed section 117 of the 2000 Act, with the effect that media costs were still categorised as referendum expenses within the regulatory regime. The amendment further specified that although these were referendum expenses, there was no need for individual bodies to be permitted participants if they wanted to spend more than that. That might not have been the Committee’s intention, but that is how we thought it would work. By comparison, our amendment simply says that those media costs are not referendum expenses at all, so they are not subject to the regulatory regime set down by the Act. We think that that provides a more direct and less confusing approach than the Committee set out in its amendment. Our new clause has the same spirit and purpose, but we prefer it, as I have explained.
The hon. Member for Rhondda asked a number of questions. As to the definition and use of language, our approach is to use the equivalent provisions in the PPRA that regulate third-party activity in elections, which have been in place since 2000. The commission responsible for regulating the provisions is happy with how it has been defined and will issue some guidance setting out the case in a little more detail. As I have learned, it is not terribly helpful—to use a ghastly phrase—to have undue specificity on the face of the Bill, whereby every single possible definition of a media outlet is set out. If that is done, but one possible meaning is not captured by the definitions, it makes it easy for a person to argue that they are not covered. Having a broader definition, about which the commission can issue guidance, is much more likely to hold up legally, particularly when it comes to some of the new media to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster has rightly drawn our attention.
I shall come to my hon. Friend’s point about the future in a moment, but we have followed the approach in the PPRA and made it explicit that, in the case of this particular referendum, the regulations will be the same as those applying to third-party activity in elections. I think that, because the referendum and the elections are to take place on the same day, it is important for us to apply the same regime to both.
Chris Bryant
The Minister is talking complete sense, but I should like to be absolutely certain about what constitutes “a newspaper or periodical”, notwithstanding the issue of the convergence of a number of different media. There is a clear definition in the 2000 Act; perhaps he could give it to us.
Chris Bryant
I understand that. My point is that I am not sure that there is a definition in law of “newspaper or periodical”, and I think that it is about time we had one. Definitions appeared in legislation in 1881 and 1952, but they conflict with each other.
Mr Harper
As I think I made clear in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, it is much better to leave such definitions to case law, which can evolve over time. If they are defined too tightly in statute law, and then new media appear and changes take place in the way in which the media are produced, we shall find that we must continually update primary legislation in order to keep up with the changes. The hon. Gentleman put his finger on it when he referred to those older definitions and the fact that they have changed. It is better to set a wider definition. The commission can issue guidance, and if problems arise, the courts can interpret the definitions in the light of changes in the way in which media organisations work, and changes in technology. That way of proceeding will produce a tighter definition than trying to include too much detail in primary legislation, which will then become out of date.
The hon. Gentleman asked about our use of the words “broadcast” and “programme”. Again, we wanted the clause to be consistent with the third-party expenditure provisions in the PPRA, and also with the parent terms in the Broadcasting Act 1996, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We did not want to open up gaps enabling people to argue that the words did not mean what they had in those original pieces of legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster referred to new media and changes in communication and technology, particularly in the context of the internet, e-mail and similar techniques. Because this will be the first United Kingdom-wide referendum to use the framework in the PPRA, one of the commitments that the Government have given to the Lords Constitution Committee, which has prepared a report on referendums, is that once it has taken place we will review the way in which it has operated, in order to establish whether we should make any legislative changes—changes in the framework, not just in specific referendums.
As my hon. Friend will know, the coalition Government are committed to introducing more referendums on both European and local matters. We now have a good opportunity to review the working of the system and to establish what practical changes are needed, given that there are likely to be more referendums in the future.
Chris Bryant
I thought that there would only be more referendums on European matters if treaties were proposed that would take powers away, but that is—I hope—a debate for another day.
I am still somewhat perplexed about the Minister’s understanding of “broadcast” and “programme”. I recognise that there are parallels in other legislation, but the concept of what constitutes the expense is material in this context. Is it the expense of making the referendum broadcast, which might include the cost of filming and so forth, or is it the expense of broadcasting the programme?
Mr Harper
I have not yet dealt with the hon. Gentleman’s point about party election broadcasts and referendum broadcasts.
On the issue of election broadcasts as against referendum broadcasts, it will be for the Electoral Commission to address the matter of referendum broadcasts with the yes and no campaigns once they have been designated. I listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Rhondda about the differences between the rules for party election broadcasts and for referendum broadcasts and the provisions on them, and I thought—if I may say so as he was very courteous about me—that he explained them very clearly. On his specific point about the rules in respect of combination and what correspondence there was on that with Ministers in devolved Governments, as he will know, Ministers in devolved Governments are not responsible for the administration of elections. At present, that is the responsibility of the three territorial Secretaries of State and my officials and I have been discussing these matters with them. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the Calman proposals include recommendations to devolve the administration of elections in Scotland to the Scottish Government, but that has not yet taken place.
Chris Bryant
So there has been absolutely no consultation with the Administrations in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland about the combining of polls, the statutory instruments that are to be laid later this week, or the referendum broadcasts, which in Wales are the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly not Ofcom?
Mr Harper
No, that is not what I said. The hon. Gentleman asked about what correspondence I had had on administering the elections, and I was just making the point that that is not the responsibility of Ministers in the devolved Administrations. There has, of course, been some contact, however. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has had discussions with the First Minister about, for example, the combination and whether the Welsh Assembly Government wanted to move the date of their election. They made it very clear that they did not. The hon. Gentleman will also know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has also had such conversations. Furthermore, I forwarded copies of the letter I sent to the hon. Gentleman and other Members explaining how we were going to lay the new clause and new schedules on combination that we will debate today not only to Ministers in the devolved Administrations but to the leaders of each of the parties represented in all three devolved bodies—the Parliament and the two Assemblies—in order to keep them informed. That is a perfectly reasonable way to conduct our business, and it is properly respectful of those nations.
Chris Bryant
Except that it is not much of a consultation if the Secretary of State for Wales goes to the First Minister in Wales and says, “The referendum is going to be held on the date of your Assembly elections. Do you want to move your Assembly elections?” That is a pretty rum sort of consultation—more a case of holding a gun to the other side’s head than a proper consultation.
Mr Harper
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is characterising that in a sensible fashion. This is a national referendum to be held in the United Kingdom, and it is a reserved matter for the UK Government to decide upon. When this whole issue arose and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement to the House, some Members asked what consultation had taken place and he made it clear that this is a matter for the UK Government and that it was right that this House heard the announcement first, before any conversations took place with the devolved Administrations. I do not think that is disrespectful; rather, it is properly respectful of the rights of this House.
Mr MacNeil
Does this not highlight that when devolution was established by the then Labour Government, they were trying too hard to hold on to power and they should instead have been a bit more relaxed and allowed the devolved Assemblies or Parliaments a bit more power over the governance of their own elections? That is not rocket science.
Mr Harper
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. In my response to the hon. Member for Rhondda, I set out what the arrangements are now for the administration of elections. One of the things that has been discussed as part of the Calman proposals is the suggestion to devolve the administration of elections to the Scottish Government. I hope that we can take that forward, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) would welcome it. I think that I have run through the issues raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. He is no longer in his place and that demonstrates that his questions have been adequately answered.
Mr Harper
I think that in this particular case it does follow. It might not follow if the hon. Gentleman left his place, but I think that my hon. Friend has left the Chamber because he was satisfied. Therefore, I ask hon. Members to support the new clause.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 19 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 20
Combination of polls
‘(1) Where the date of the poll for one or more of the following is the same as the date of the poll for the referendum, the polls are to be taken together—
(a) a local authority election in England;
(b) a local referendum in England;
(c) a mayoral election in England.
(2) The polls for the referendum and the Welsh Assembly general election in 2011 are to be taken together.
(3) The polls for the referendum and the Scottish parliamentary general election in 2011 are to be taken together.
(4) Where the date of the poll for one or more of the following is the same as the date of the poll for the referendum, the polls are to be taken together—
(a) a Northern Ireland Assembly Election;
(b) a Northern Ireland local election.
(5) The following have effect—
Schedule [Combination of polls: England], in relation to the polls to be taken together in England under subsection (1);
Schedule [Combination of polls: Wales], in relation to the polls to be taken together in Wales under subsection (2);
Schedule [Combination of polls: Scotland], in relation to the polls to be taken together in Scotland under subsection (3);
Schedule [Combination of polls: Northern Ireland], in relation to the polls to be taken together in Northern Ireland under subsection (4).
(6) Polls taken together under this section must not be taken together with any other polls (despite provision in any enactment to the contrary).
(7) Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act 1985 (postponement of poll at parish elections etc) does not apply to any polls taken together under subsection (1).
(8) In this section—
“local authority election in England” means the election of a councillor of any of the following— a county council in England; a district council in England; a London borough council; a parish council;
(a) a county council in England;
(b) a district council in England;
(c) a London borough council;
(d) a parish council;
“local referendum in England” means a referendum held in England under Part 2 of the Local Government Act 2000;
“mayoral election in England” means an election in England for the return of an elected mayor as defined by section 39(1) of the Local Government Act 2000;
“Northern Ireland Assembly election” means an election to the Northern Ireland Assembly;
“Northern Ireland local election” means a local election as defined by section 130(1) of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962;
“Scottish parliamentary general election” means an ordinary election under section 2 of the Scotland Act 1998;
“Welsh Assembly general election” means an ordinary election under section 3 of the Government of Wales Act 2006.’.—(Mr Harper.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment (a) to new clause 20, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
(1) Where the date of the poll for a local authority election in England is the same as the date of the poll for the referendum, the polls are to be taken together.’.
Amendment (b) to new clause 20, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
(4) Where the date of the poll for a Northern Ireland Assembly Election is the same as the date of the poll for the referendum, the polls are to be taken together.’.
Amendment (c) to new clause 20, in subsection (8), leave out from ‘“local referendum in England”’ to the second “Local Government Act 2000;”
Amendment (d) to new clause 20, in subsection (8), leave out from ‘“Northern Ireland local election”’ to “Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962”.
Government new schedule 2—Combination of polls: England.
Amendment (a) to new schedule 2, in paragraph 11, in sub-paragraph (1) leave out ‘15th’ and insert ‘28th’.
Amendment (b) to new schedule 2, after paragraph 12, insert—
‘Absent voter application
12A An application under regulation 51(4)b of the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, SI 2001/341, for an absent vote must state whether it is made for parliamentary elections, local government elections, referendums or all of them.’.
Amendment (c) to new schedule 2, leave out paragraph 15 and insert—
‘15 (1) The Chief Counting Officer shall select the colour of the ballot paper used for the referendum.
(2) The other ballot papers used for any relevant election shall be of a different colour from that selected by the Chief Counting Officer.’.
Amendment (d) to new schedule 2, in paragraph 17, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
‘(1) The official poll cards used for the referendum and for the relevant elections must be combined for all electors qualified to vote in all the polls.’.
Amendment (e) to new schedule 2, in paragraph 18, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and (2) and insert—
(1) Separate ballot boxes must be used for the referendum to those used for other relevant elections taking place on the same day.
(2) Each ballot box must be marked to show—
(a) the referendum or relevant election to which it relates, and
(b) the colour of ballot papers that should be placed in it.’.
Amendment (g) to new schedule 2, in paragraph 27, in sub-paragraph (1), leave out
‘If the counting officer thinks fit, the same copy of the register of electors may’
and insert
‘Separate registers of electors must’.
Amendment (h) to new schedule 2, in paragraph 27, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) to (4).
Amendment (i) to new schedule 2, in paragraph 40, at the end of sub-paragraph (3) insert
‘or
(c) the person is a Member of Parliament.’.
Amendment (j) to new schedule 2, after paragraph 43 insert—
‘Priority in counting of votes
43A Counting officers must give priority to the counting of ballots cast in—
(a) the respective elections to the Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales devolved administrations, and
(b) local council elections in each part of the United Kingdom.’.
Amendment (k) to new schedule 2, in paragraph 44, at the end of sub-paragraph (1), at end of sub-sub-paragraph (a) insert
‘containing ballot papers for the referendum vote.’.
Amendment (l) to new schedule 2, in paragraph 44, at the end of sub-paragraph (1), at end of sub-sub-paragraph (b) insert
‘containing ballot papers for the referendum vote.’.
Amendment (m) to new schedule 2, in paragraph 44, at the end of sub-paragraph (3), at end of sub-sub-paragraph (a) insert
‘containing ballot papers for the referendum vote.’.
Amendment (n) to new schedule 2, in paragraph 44, at the end of sub-paragraph (3), at end of sub-sub-paragraph (b) insert
‘containing ballot papers for the referendum vote.’.
Amendment (o) to new schedule 2, in Part 2, in the second column, in the entry relating to Regulation 71, leave out ‘eleventh’ and insert ‘fifteenth’.
Government new schedule 3—Combination of polls: Wales.
Amendment (a) to new schedule 3, in paragraph 15, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
"(1) The official poll cards used for the referendum and the Assembly elections must be combined for all electors qualified to vote in all the polls.’.
Amendment (b) to new schedule 3, in paragraph 17, leave out sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) and insert—
“(1) Separate ballot boxes must be used for the referendum to that used for the Assembly elections.
(2) Each ballot box must be marked to show—
(a) the referendum or Assembly election to which it relates, and
(b) the colour of ballot papers that should be placed in it.’.
Amendment (c) to new schedule 3, leave out paragraph 18 and insert—
“18 (1) The Chief Counting Officer shall select the colour of the ballot paper used for the referendum.
(2) The other ballot papers used for the Assembly elections shall be of a different colour from that selected by the Chief Counting Officer.’.
Amendment (e) to new schedule 3, in paragraph 45, at the end of sub-paragraph (3) insert
‘or
(c) the person is a Member of Parliament.’.
Amendment (f) to new schedule 3, in paragraph 47, in sub-paragraph (1)(d), leave out ‘separate’ and insert ‘keep separate throughout’.
Amendment (g) to new schedule 3, in paragraph 49, sub-paragraph (1), at the end of sub-sub-paragraph (a) insert
‘containing ballot papers for the referendum vote.’.
Amendment (h) to new schedule 3, in paragraph 49, at the end of sub-paragraph (1), at end of sub-sub-paragraph (b) insert
‘containing ballot papers for the referendum vote.’.
Amendment (i) to new schedule 3, in paragraph 49, at the end of sub-paragraph (3), at end of sub-sub-paragraph (a) insert
‘containing ballot papers for the referendum vote.’.
Amendment (j) to new schedule 3, in paragraph 49, at the end of sub-paragraph (3), at end of sub-sub-paragraph (b) insert
‘containing ballot papers for the referendum vote.’.
Government new schedule 4—Combination of polls: Scotland.
Amendment (a) to new schedule 4, paragraph 15, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
“(1) The official poll cards used for the referendum and for the Scottish parliamentary election must be combined for all electors qualified to vote in all the polls.’.
Amendment (b) to new schedule 4, paragraph 17, leave out sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) and insert—
“(1) Separate ballot boxes must be used for the referendum to that used for the Scottish parliamentary elections.
(2) Each ballot box must be marked to show—
(a) the referendum or parliamentary election to which it relates, and
(b) the colour of ballot papers that should be placed in it.’.
Amendment (c) to new schedule 4, leave out paragraph 18 and insert—
“18 (1) The Chief Counting Officer shall select the colour of the ballot paper used for the referendum.
(2) The ballot papers used for constituency or regional ballots shall be of a different colour from that selected by the Chief Counting Officer.’.
Amendment (e) to new schedule 4, in paragraph 42, at the end of sub-paragraph (3) insert
‘or
(c) the person is a Member of Parliament.’.
Amendment (f) to new schedule 4, in paragraph 46, in sub-paragraph (1)(d), leave out ‘separate’ and insert ‘keep separate throughout.’.
Amendment (g) to new schedule 4, in paragraph 48, at the end of sub-paragraph (1) (a)insert
‘containing ballot papers for the referendum vote.’.
Amendment (h) to new schedule 4, in paragraph 48, at the end of sub-paragraph (1), at end of sub-sub-paragraph (1)(b) insert
‘containing ballot papers for the referendum vote.’.
Amendment (i) to new schedule 4, in paragraph 48, at the end of sub-paragraph (3), at end of sub-sub-paragraph (a) insert
‘containing ballot papers for the referendum vote.’.
Amendment (j) to new schedule 4, in paragraph 48, at the end of sub-paragraph (3), at end of sub-sub-paragraph (b) insert
‘containing ballot papers for the referendum vote.’.
Government new schedule 5—Combination of polls: Northern Ireland.
Amendment (a) to new schedule 5, leave out paragraph 12 and insert—
“12 (1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall select the colour of the ballot paper used for the referendum.
(2) The ballot papers used for any relevant elections shall be of a different colour from that selected by the Chief Electoral Officer.’.
Amendment (b) to new schedule 5, in paragraph 14, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
“(1) The official poll cards used for the referendum and for the relevant elections must be combined for all electors qualified to vote in all the polls.’.
Amendment (c ) to new schedule 5, in paragraph 15, leave out sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) and insert—
“(1) Separate ballot boxes must be used for the referendum to that used for other relevant elections taking place on the same day.
(2) Each ballot box must be marked to show—
(a) the referendum or relevant election to which it relates, and
(b) the colour of ballot papers that should be placed in it.’.
Amendment (e) to new schedule 5, in paragraph 31, at the end of sub-paragraph (3) insert
‘or is a Member of Parliament.’.
Amendment (f) to new schedule 5, in paragraph 32, in sub-paragraph (1)(c), leave out ‘separate’ and insert ‘keep separate throughout.’.
Amendment (g) to new schedule 5, in paragraph 33, at the end of sub-paragraph (1)(a), insert
‘containing ballot papers for the referendum vote.’.
Amendment (h) to new schedule 5, in paragraph 33, at the end of sub-paragraph (1)(b) insert
‘containing ballot papers for the referendum vote.’.
Amendment (i) to new schedule 5, in paragraph 48, at the end of sub-paragraph (3)(a) insert
‘containing ballot papers for the referendum vote.’.
Amendment (j) to new schedule 5, in paragraph 48, sub-paragraph (3), at end of sub-sub-paragraph (b) insert
‘containing ballot papers for the referendum vote.’.
Chris Bryant
On a point of order, Mr Evans. This is a large group of amendments, schedules and a new clause; indeed, it constitutes some 120 pages of the amendment paper. I need a little clarity about when we come to vote on amendments and about whether, if we were to agree to the new clause, it would then be possible to vote on amendments to the schedule later.
The First Deputy Chairman
It is all dependent on how long this particular set of new clauses and schedules are talked to. Clearly, if we get to them before the knife is reached at 11 o’clock, they will be taken with the amendments, but that changes if we go beyond 11 o’clock.
Chris Bryant
It will get a semi-serious response; I do not want the hon. Gentleman to worry about this. I merely wish to remind him that the Deputy Leader of the House, who is sitting next to him, has said:
“I am saying that every Member of this House has the right to express their opinion before this House in whatever way they feel is appropriate and to be listened to.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2010; Vol. 504, c. 173.]
I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House still feels that that is true.
Mr Harper
I agree, and indeed we did listen to the hon. Gentleman at length—I am just not sure that what he said would not have been improved had it been a little more brief. [Interruption.] It is a jest; do not take it so seriously.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the new clause and the new schedules are fairly sizeable. I am not going to labour the discussion on them, but they are important and so I shall go through them in some detail—I hope not to detain the House for longer than is absolutely necessary. They are required to provide that the referendum on the voting system can be combined with the eight different elections or local referendums across the UK that could take place on 5 May 2011. The “combination amendments”—I use a collective noun for them—consist of one new clause and four schedules. There is a schedule to deal with the combination with elections or local government referendums for each of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Each schedule is divided into three parts: part 1 deals with general provisions; part 2 deals with postal voting provisions; and part 3 deals with forms.
I think it is helpful to state that we decided not to include the combination provisions in the Bill when it was introduced on 22 July in order, as we said then, to allow us time to work with the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators and others in government, particularly those in the territorial offices, to make sure that if we did hold the referendum on the same day as elections, notwithstanding the arguments that Members of the Committee have made about whether or not we should do so, those polls would be well conducted and well run.
Our general approach has been to adopt a consistent approach for the referendum across the UK, but we have recognised that in some areas there is a need for variation to reflect local circumstances. For example, following consultation with the Scotland Office, the Wales Office and the chair of the interim Scottish electoral management board it became apparent that it would make the conduct of the referendum and elections easier for administrators if, in Wales and Scotland, the referendums were run on the same respective boundaries as the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish parliamentary elections. Appropriate provisions were consequently added to the Bill following a successful Government amendment last Monday and further provisions to support this are included in new schedules 3 and 4.
I am conscious that this is a sizeable set of amendments and it is only right and proper that we should go through them in some detail, so let me set them out for the benefit of the Committee. At the end of my remarks I shall say something about the territorial orders, so if the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) feels the urge to intervene on me about that point, I want him to know that I will get to it and, if he will hold his horses, I will set it out.
New clause 20 provides that the referendum on the voting system will be combined with the following polls, which are scheduled to take place on 5 May next year: elections to the Welsh Assembly, elections to the Scottish Parliament, elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, local elections in England, local elections in Northern Ireland, mayoral elections in five local authorities in England and parish elections in England. There is also a strong likelihood that there might be some local mayoral referendums in England on 5 May and we have included provisions to allow those polls to be combined with the referendum.
New clause 20 includes provisions on parish elections, which reflect the commitment that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on Second Reading. In England, parish council elections will be combined with the local elections and the referendum on the voting system and not postponed for three weeks. The Government’s decision takes into account the positive impact on turnout and the savings that can be made by combining these polls. Before making that decision, I was reassured by the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators that it would be possible in practice to combine the referendum, local elections and parish council elections on 5 May. I understand that that position is also supported by the National Association of Local Councils.
Subsection (6) of new clause 20 provides that, with the exception of the polls I have mentioned, no further polls will be combined with the referendum if they are arranged for 5 May. If there are any other unscheduled polls, such as a UK parliamentary by-election or a local government by-election in Wales, that run on separate boundaries, they will be run as separate elections, which will be easier and more straightforward for electoral administrators.
New schedule 2 sets out the provisions for the combination of the referendum with local parish and mayoral elections and local government referendums in England. I can advise the Committee that the majority of these provisions mirror those that already exist for combining polls under the various combination rules included under relevant pieces of legislation, such as the “Mayoral Elections (Combination of Polls) Rules” set out in schedule 3 to the Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007. I fear that I might refer to similarly exciting-sounding parts of the legislative book during this debate.
Part 1 of new schedule 2 contains the following provisions, which I am sure that the Committee will be interested to note. Paragraph 3 provides that at a combined poll, a counting officer will be able discharge a number of the functions for which a returning officer would usually be responsible at an election. In short, it means that those functions that are discharged by referendum counting officers, such as the provision of polling stations, appointment of poll clerks and issuing of combined poll cards, will automatically determine practice at both polls. We have allowed for decisions on most core functions that relate to the conduct of a combined poll to be made at the discretion of the counting officer. That follows the approach taken in existing combination legislation that when polls are combined, certain functions in relation to the conduct of both polls are carried out by one officer.
There are two key exceptions. The printing of the ballot paper for the election polls will remain under the control of returning officers. Decisions about whether or not to combine postal ballot packs will be made through the counting officer agreeing a position with the relevant returning officer. The latter position ensures that decisions will be made in accordance with local needs. There are situations in which combining those postal ballot packs would simply not be practical and legislating for counting officers and returning officers to do things that are simply not practically possible does not seem to be very sensible.
Paragraph 5 provides that the cost of the combined polls will be equally apportioned between them. For example, in the case of a combined referendum on the voting system and local government elections in England, the cost would be split 50:50 between the Consolidated Fund and the local authority concerned.
Paragraph 9 permits the counting officer to decide whether combined corresponding number lists should be used for the combined polls. Paragraph 11 provides that the notice of poll for the combined elections should be published
“not later than the 15th day before the date of the poll.”
The 15-day deadline is necessary to ensure that a consistent approach is taken for all the polls that we are combining on 5 May.
Paragraph 15 provides that the ballot papers used for the referendum must be a different colour from the ballot papers used for any combined poll, thereby preventing any risk that voters might confuse the ballot papers. Paragraph 16 provides clarity that the polling stations that the counting officer chooses for the referendum will be used for all combined polls taking place in the voting area.
Mr MacNeil
On the use of separate ballot boxes, if a voter happens to put both papers in one or other of the ballot boxes, will that be cleared up at the polling station simply by transferring the relevant paper to the right pile?
Mr Harper
Clearly, as is common with combined polls, the verification procedure, which I shall discuss later, will make sure that verification is complete for all polls before any election results are declared, so that there will not be problems if a whole load of ballot papers are suddenly found in the wrong box. That provision is fairly consistent with what happens now in combined elections.
Mr MacNeil
Will the Minister clarify that point? When he says “verification”, does he mean “counting”, with a declaration of the result after both polls have been counted, or does he mean that the papers will be separated to ensure that they are in the right place and that, in Scotland, votes for the Scottish Parliament will be counted and declared before people get around to counting and declaring the result of the referendum?
Mr Harper
Yes. The verification of both the referendum and election ballot papers will take place first; it will not be necessary to count the referendum papers at that point, but they will have to be verified to make sure that no election ballot papers have inadvertently been put in the wrong box. That is what happens with combined general and local elections now: local election votes do not have to be counted before general election votes can be counted and the result declared, but both sets of papers have to be verified to ensure that all the general election papers are in one place and that the result is accurate. That does not hold up the declaration of results, which, quite importantly for all the devolved Assemblies, will be wanted as soon as possible. When I come to that issue, the hon. Gentleman can jump straight in if he thinks I have not been clear.
Following our debate in Committee on 18 October, I confirm that a large-print version of the ballot papers for each of the relevant polls, including the referendum, must be displayed at all polling stations. Paragraph 20 provides that at a combined poll:
“The large version of the ballot paper displayed…must be of the same colour as the ballot papers to be used for the referendum.”
Paragraphs 27 to 34 permit the counting officer to use the same copy of the register for each poll to combine the various lists that are produced for proxy voters, the votes marked by the presiding officer, the list of voters with disabilities assisted by companions and the tendered votes list.
Paragraph 36 sets out the procedure that presiding officers must follow at the close of poll. That includes rules on the packets that need to be made up and sent to the counting officer after the poll has closed. Provision is included to ensure that certain documents relating to each poll are not combined with documents relating to any other poll. That applies to unused or spoilt ballot papers, tendered ballot papers and certificates as to employment on the day of the poll.
Paragraphs 38 to 45 set out the Government’s policy for the verification and count procedure at a combined poll. The combination amendment does not specify the timing of the count for any of the polls, to ensure that there is flexibility for votes on the ballot papers for the elections to be counted before those for the referendum. The combination rules for the verification and count process make it clear that once ballot papers have been received from polling stations, they have to be taken out of the ballot boxes and separated into piles for each poll. Before the votes on ballot papers for any poll can be counted, the counting officer or relevant returning officer must ensure that the ballot papers from a ballot box are mixed with the ballot papers for that poll from a different ballot box, and that postal ballot papers are mixed with ballot papers for that poll from a ballot box. If the counting of votes for any poll has not commenced by the time the verification process has been concluded, the ballot papers for that poll must be sealed up and retained by the counting officer in the case of referendum ballot papers, or delivered to the relevant returning officer, who will be responsible for storing the ballot papers securely until the count takes place.
Paragraph 46 provides that the verification process for all combined polls must have been completed before the declaration of any counts. Although we are aware that that may delay the declaration of a count, we believe that given the number of polls taking place the requirement is essential to ensure that all the ballot papers have been correctly accounted for, thereby ensuring the integrity of the count. Clearly, as with combined elections, having to do all the verification may mean that the result is a little delayed, but it will not mean that we have to wait for the referendum to be counted before the election count.
Paragraphs 48 and 49 set out the arrangements for ensuring that the counting officer and returning officer seal up all relevant papers in appropriate packets after the poll, and deliver them to the relevant registration officer. All documents that have been combined will be sealed together and sent by the counting officer to the relevant registration officer. Where it has been decided to use separate lists for each poll, the documents will be sealed in separate packets and delivered to the relevant registration officer by either the counting officer for the referendum or the returning officer for the relevant election.
We have specifically provided that in the event of legal proceedings arising on the referendum and/or relevant election, the court can make an order for the production of combined documents relating to the poll or polls.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the Minister for going through in some detail the large number of pages containing the amendments, new clauses and new schedules. The register for local elections in England will be different from the register used for the referendum, and from the register in Wales. The Government’s provisions suggest that there should be just one register in each polling station and that some kind of mark will be made somewhere to suggest who has had, and who has not had, each of the ballot papers. Is he confident that that will meet the requirement to make sure that nobody has a ballot paper to which they are not entitled? How will the returning officer make sure that the list of voters who have voted, or who have been given ballot papers, is accurately provided to the regional counting officer and then the counting officer, as well as to the local authority?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are confident that the provisions will work appropriately. Combining the referendum with the elections may be controversial—although more for issues relating to the mechanics of the election—but it is not as though we never hold combined elections. We hold combined general elections and local elections, which have different franchises. There may be the odd problem, but in the main they work well, so this is not a new departure for those who run elections. We are confident about the rules, which we reached after close working with the Electoral Commission, which is responsible for running the referendum, and the Association of Electoral Administrators, which is responsible for delivering elections. They are confident that we have come up with a set of rules that maximise the ability of all individuals on the ground to run a smooth set of combined polls on 5 May 2011.
Part 2 of new schedule 2 includes provisions for the issue and receipt of postal ballot packs. The provisions apply existing legislation and make the necessary modifications. When read together, they set out the Government’s policy that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers can be combined if returning and counting officers think fit. They also set out how the procedure works when papers are combined and when they are issued separately; the procedure and timing for the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers; the persons who are entitled to be present at proceedings on receipt of postal ballot papers for both the referendum and the relevant election; and the procedure for forwarding and retaining documents relating to the postal voting process—for example, postal voting statements, the proxy voters log and the postal voters list.
Part 3 of new schedule 2 sets out the combined forms that can be used for the purposes of the combined polls. The forms include corresponding number lists, postal voting statements, guidance for voters and a certificate of employment. As is the case for forms contained in the referendum rules, the Electoral Commission will be able to modify the forms for the purpose of making them easier for voters to understand or use.
I can confirm to the Committee that equivalent provisions with necessary modifications to take into account local needs have been provided for the combination of polls in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland under new schedules 3, 4 and 5.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Before we move off the subject, a person applying for a postal ballot might automatically assume that by doing so they will get one for all elections. Is that so, or must they apply separately for a postal ballot for each poll?
Mr Harper
I do not want to anticipate the debate that we will have on the proposals of the hon. Member for Rhondda, but we have said that someone’s standing postal vote application for parliamentary elections will trigger their postal vote for the referendum. It is the same franchise, and we thought that that was a better way around the problem than insisting that all those with a standing postal vote application for a parliamentary election apply for a new postal vote specifically for the referendum. We wanted to maximise the opportunities for people to take part rather than have people who miss out because they did not realise that they needed to apply for a new postal vote. We have ensured that if people already have a standing postal vote for a parliamentary election, they will get one for the referendum.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), the Minister specifically mentioned people who have a postal ballot for parliamentary elections. My recollection of the paperwork that is issued in Scotland is that electors tick boxes to say that they want a postal ballot for all elections. That might seem like a nit-picking point, but will the Minister confirm that by ticking a box marked, “All elections,” people will be entitled to receive a postal ballot for the referendum?
Mr Harper
My understanding is that if people are entitled to, or have applied for, a postal vote for a parliamentary election and tick the box marked “All elections”—that is a common way of asking that question in England as well as in Scotland—and if they are on the list for parliamentary elections, they will get a postal vote for the referendum. I am sure that if I have got that wrong, inspiration will strike me and I can correct my answer.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Of course, in England on 5 May, we will have not parliamentary elections, but local elections. What assessment has the Minister or the Cabinet Office made of the number of people who are registered only for council election postal votes?
Mr Harper
Clearly, we do not need to have a parliamentary election—registration for a permanent postal vote for a parliamentary election will automatically trigger the postal vote for the referendum. What happens if a person is registered for a postal vote only for local elections depends on whether the postal ballot packs are combined.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Can the Minister clarify the situation for next May? Is it conceivable that large numbers of voters in England—this probably will not happen in Scotland—will be sent automatically the referendum ballot paper but not a council ballot paper? People might have to go to the polling station to vote for their councillor, and yet be able to vote only by post in the referendum. Has the Cabinet Office made any calculation of how many people that will affect?
Mr Harper
If we were not having a referendum and were having only local council elections in England—I shall refer to England, as that is what the hon. Gentleman’s question was about—people would not get a postal vote if they had not asked for one, or if they were not registered for a permanent one. If they were registered for a postal vote for a parliamentary election, that would come automatically, but that would not in any way reduce their ability to participate in local elections, as they had not asked for a postal vote.
Mr Harris
There is a corollary to what the Minister says, then. If people are registered to vote by post for a parliamentary election, and they then receive the ballot paper for the AV referendum, is it not likely that they will fill in that ballot paper without going to the polling station in order to cast a vote in the local council elections, thereby deflating turnout in the local council elections, which are extremely important?
Mr Harper
I am not sure I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure that voting in the referendum by post would make someone less likely to go and vote in their local council elections, as long as they were clear about what was going on. We have been clear, and the Electoral Commission has been clear—
Mr Harper
Let me finish responding to the intervention before I take another one. It is important that people are clear about what is going on. The Electoral Commission has said that one of its key responsibilities, as well as running the referendums, is to make sure that clear guidance is issued to those conducting elections and that there are clear communications to electors. The commission will send a booklet to every household to explain to people the elections and referendum that are taking place, so that people are clear about what is happening. The point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow South is well made.
Andrew Gwynne
My concern is the opposite to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris). Plenty of people in England will be registered for a local election postal vote, but not necessarily for a parliamentary election postal vote. They will get a ballot paper for the 5 May council elections, but not for the referendum. How is that right?
Chris Ruane
I thank the Minister for giving way. Right, here we go: what would happen in Wales if an elector were registered for a postal vote at European elections, not for a postal vote at parliamentary elections, for a postal vote at Welsh Assembly Government elections, and for a postal vote at local government elections? Whatever the Minister says, will the public understand it?
Mr Harper
If such a voter had elected to register for a permanent postal vote for every possible election except a Westminster parliamentary one, they would clearly have had a good reason for doing that, so our proposal that the UK parliamentary franchise be used makes sense. I do not think the hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point.
Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is deliberate obfuscation going on, given that some citizens eligible to vote in local elections are not necessarily eligible to vote in Westminster elections—for example, European nationals, whom we would not wish to vote in the referendum anyway? Contrary to the intervention by the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris), is not one of the biggest predictors of voting whether someone has voted before? Is not the existence of the referendum therefore more likely to increase, rather than depress, turnout in local elections?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend is spot-on. To be frank, I think that voters are perfectly capable of working out what elections or referendums are taking place. Voters in Wales will have had some warm-up practice in March, because they will have had an important referendum on the powers that the Welsh Assembly Government should have. They will therefore have had the opportunity to think about whether they want an absent vote. That will mean, I am sure, that at the front of their minds, as they approach the elections and referendum on 5 May, they will be thinking hard about whether they will be around and able to vote in person, or whether they should apply for an absent vote. At least in Wales, therefore, what the hon. Member for Glasgow South suggests might happen is unlikely to do so.
Now, where did I get to? [Laughter.] There have been so many interventions. I suspect that it was nice for everyone to break up the monotony of my voice reading out these exciting provisions, so I am happy to have taken those criticisms from the Committee.
Given that the provisions in schedules 3 to 5 are largely consistent with those I have outlined for England, I am sure that the Committee will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to go through their contents in the same detail. However, I will go through some of the key provisions we have made for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. As I confirmed earlier, we have amended the definition of a voting area for the referendum as it applies in Scotland and Wales to provide that the referendum is to be run on the same respective boundaries as Scottish parliamentary and National Assembly for Wales elections. That will help with the administration of the elections, as the officials involved in delivering them have said.
We have kept the provisions on the timing of the count silent in the legislation to allow sufficient flexibility for the counts for the devolved elections to take place prior to the referendum count. We have based the postal voting provisions in part 2 of schedules 3 and 4 on those that apply for Welsh Assembly and Scottish parliamentary elections, making modifications where necessary to take account of the referendum. That will ensure that small differences in regional practice on postal voting will carry through to the referendum.
Chris Bryant
But why? Why should there be variations in postal vote practices around the country for a UK-wide referendum?
Mr Harper
It is because we are combining it with elections that are different in different parts of the UK. Picking up on points that hon. Members were making earlier, I can say that the poll cards issued will confirm the voting arrangements that will apply to a particular elector for each poll. They will explain to electors the arrangements in place, and people will be able to apply to the registration office to vary their postal voting arrangements up until 11 days before the poll, or six days before the poll where a proxy vote takes place. That will be helpful.
The Committee will want to be aware—certainly the hon. Member for Rhondda will—that I can confirm that all the new orders have been laid by the territorial offices today to update the rules for the elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales. Given that the combination amendments just discussed are based on existing legislation, as is usual practice, any consequential amendments reflecting those new territorial orders will be tabled for debate on Report next week, as I said last week.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Will the Minister detail to the Committee what discussions and consultation he has held with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly prior to the orders being laid?
Mr Harper
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was here when we had a slight rehearsal of this discussion at the beginning of our sitting, but the hon. Member for Rhondda asked me what discussions I had had about the conduct of the referendum in the devolved nations and about the arrangements for the combined polls, and I made the point to him that arrangements for elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the responsibility not of Ministers in the devolved nations, but of the territorial Secretaries of State.
I also pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that I had written to explain how we would lay and handle the combination amendments. I wrote not just to Opposition Front Benchers and Members who had expressed an interest, but out of courtesy to the leaders of every party represented in the devolved Parliament and Assemblies in order to keep them confirmed.
I said also that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland have had discussions with representatives of the Administrations in each country about the combined elections, although it is fair to say that they all said to me—I shall not go through the issue in detail, because we had this debate at length on day one of Committee—that they were not happy with the combined poll.
Pete Wishart
Is it fair to characterise the Minister’s response as “No consultation with the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly or Northern Ireland Assembly”? Would that be roughly right?
Mr Harper
No. The conduct of elections is currently the responsibility of the territorial Secretaries of State. I also made the point to the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who was here at the beginning of our sitting, that with the Calman recommendations, the administration of elections in Scotland is proposed to be devolved to the Scottish Government. Clearly, if such elections were to take place in future, the Scottish Government would be very involved, but at the moment the responsibility for the administration of each election is that of the Secretary of State, not of the devolved Administrations.
Mr Howarth
Given the procedure that the Minister has just described, can he assure me that under the orders to which he has referred, the process in Scotland, for example, cannot differ from that in England, Northern Ireland or Wales? If it can, it might change the terms on which people in each part of the United Kingdom are able to engage in a referendum.
Mr Harper
I am not sure that I follow the right hon. Gentleman. Clearly, there will be some differences. One difference I outlined is that, because the referendum is being combined in Scotland with Scottish parliamentary elections, the voting areas and conduct of the elections will be based on Scottish parliamentary constituencies. That will clearly be different in Wales, where they will be based on Welsh parliamentary constituencies, and in England the referendum will be conducted according to local government boundaries, all so that we can combine the elections in the most sensible way, which is what the administrators wanted us to do.
Mr Howarth
I understand that, but I had in mind the question: is there any way in which the qualification for taking part in a referendum might inadvertently be changed by that process?
Mr Harper
No. The franchise—those who can take part in the referendum on the voting system—are those people entitled to vote in Westminster parliamentary elections and, before the hon. Member for Rhondda jumps up, the small amendment that we have made, the addition of peers. The franchise is the same throughout the United Kingdom, so those entitled to vote in Westminster elections will be able to vote; the issue is simply to do with the mechanics of administering the polls to ensure that the elections are conducted using the most administratively sensible process.
Margaret Curran
The Minister may not be aware, but I am still a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and I feel obliged to point out to him that throughout the Parliament there are concerns about the coalition Government’s decision to hold the referendum on the same date as Scottish Parliament elections. People across the political spectrum in Scotland profoundly feel that that is a great disrespect to the Scottish Parliament, and I say that with great authority.
Margaret Curran
This is not a nationalist point, and I hope that the coalition does not dismiss the feelings to which I have referred as the marginal voice of nationalism in Scotland. The view is widespread throughout Scotland, and mainstream parties such as mine also hold it. However, I am concerned that in response to the question from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), the Minister seemed to imply that, because the Scottish Parliament does not have responsibility for the elections at the moment, it is not a key stakeholder in the ongoing discussions—
The First Deputy Chairman
Order. This intervention is longer than some of the speeches that I have made in this House—
Mr Harper
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will come to him when I have completed this point.
We recognise that there is a different qualitative issue raised by the combination of the general election and these elections. As I have said in previous debates, we are thinking about how that issue may be dealt with, and we will come back to the House and the devolved Administrations in due course.
Chris Bryant
It seems extraordinary that the Government are taking this attitude in relation to consulting the devolved Administrations about their own elections. I fully understand that they do not have legislative competence for that matter—it is a competence reserved to Westminster—but it would be common human decency to be able to consult them. In the past, the Minister has tried to argue that he wanted to tell this House before he told anybody else. However, he knows perfectly well that through the Joint Ministerial Committee there are provisions for the Government to speak to the Welsh Assembly Government, the Executive in Scotland and so on. There is no reason why he could not have used those processes perfectly well.
Mr Harper
Hang on: let me deal with one intervention at a time.
My understanding—I am sure that this is the case—is that this issue has been raised at the JMC; I am sure that I will be corrected if it has not. Moreover, one would be having these conversations not only with the Administrations but with the Parliaments and Assemblies themselves. I know that some of those conversations have taken place. For example, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has had a communication from the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly making it clear that its Members did not want the date of the Assembly election changed.
Cathy Jamieson
I think that the Minister said that the Scottish Parliament and the other devolved Assemblies had not taken a formal position by means of passing a resolution. Is he therefore suggesting that should, say, the Scottish Parliament pass such a resolution, he would change his mind?
Mr Harper
No, I was not suggesting that at all; I was simply making the point that they have not done so. However, let me save them time and trouble by saying that if they do, it will not make us change our minds, so they can focus on the important issues that voters will be concerned about.
Mr MacNeil
Does the Minister find it a bit rich—I know I do—that Labour Members, particularly those who are still Members of the Scottish Parliament, argue day in, day out against more powers for the Scottish Parliament, yet suddenly, when party politics are involved, try to score points by saying that they want more powers for the Scottish Parliament? They should stick to their principles and not play party politics with the issue when they are here. We should give power to the Scottish Parliament similar to that for the Isle of Man, at the very least.
Mr Harper
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will not add to his point, but I am now slightly envious that I am not a Member of the Scottish Parliament too, and so cannot indulge in such debates on a daily basis. I now know what I am missing out on by not participating in Scottish politics.
In answer to the hon. Member for Rhondda, I can confirm that these issues have been discussed at the JMC. If he does not believe that they have, I will happily write to him and give him the details.
Chris Bryant
To be honest, I do not want the Minister to write to me, I want him to consult the respective Executives in—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) should calm down. The Government are ensuring that he has his own rotten borough, so he does not have to worry about the Bill.
I want to ensure that consultation happens properly. We rightly insist that before any European Union legislation is brought in we should have 10 weeks to do our proper parliamentary duty, and the same should apply to the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Minister is deliberately eliding two concepts. Raising the matter at the JMC is one thing, but consulting expressly on written documents, which has not happened in relation to any of these issues, is something else altogether.
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to ensure that these issues had been discussed, and they have been raised and discussed at the JMC. The devolved Administrations probably still disagree with the Westminster Government’s decision, but the matter has been discussed. He is not making a very sensible point.
Mr Harper
It certainly does have that experience, which is why we looked closely at the conclusions in the Gould report. In an earlier debate I made it clear that although Ron Gould—he of the said report—said that combination would not have been his first choice, he was clear that combining a simple yes/no referendum and the Scottish parliamentary elections was likely to be a much more straightforward proposition than what happened in the elections to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Ron Gould did not believe that the same problems would occur.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
I can assure the Minister that I am not going to rant and rave like the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). The Minister says that a referendum and a parliamentary election on the same day are acceptable, but that seems to imply that only two votes will take place on the same day. However, there will be a first-past-the-post vote for the Scottish Parliament, a list vote for the Scottish Parliament and a referendum. He is possibly misleading Parliament—not intentionally—by implying that there will be only two votes.
Mr Harper
No, we have added one extra vote to what would otherwise have taken place, and it will have a simple yes or no question rather than a complex electoral system. Like the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar in an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern) is doing his fellow Scots a disservice by suggesting, albeit obliquely, that they are not capable of making a decision in the referendum as well as voting in the very important Scottish parliamentary elections.
Mr Harper
No, I do not think there is, actually. People are perfectly capable of laying out the prospectus on which they stand and the important issues on which they are campaigning in the elections to the Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly and Scottish Parliament, and also joining the yes or no campaign on a voting system for this Parliament. That is not very complicated at all, and our voters will show us that we are underrating them if we take that view. Incidentally, next week, Americans will vote in an extraordinary number of elections—I shall pursue that thought only briefly, Mr Evans, for fear that you will rule me out of order—and they are perfectly capable of doing that, in the same way as voters here are perfectly capable of voting in two or three sets of elections next year.
Chris Bryant
The Parliamentary Secretary knows that the system that evolved in the United States because they have so many elections at the same time means simply pulling a Democrat or a Republican switch. Surely he does not intend to move to that system.
Mr McCann
Will the Parliamentary Secretary focus on the pertinent point about the 2007 elections in Scotland? Many elderly voters are extremely confused. I have many elderly constituents who are proud of having voted in every election since they were given the opportunity to do so. The introduction of new voting systems in 2007 made the ballot papers confusing for them, and they were disturbed by that. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that holding another vote on the same day as the Scottish elections will provide scope for confusion, and many people will therefore be disfranchised in the referendum?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman would have a stronger point if we were talking about another set of elections with a new voting system, and putting everything on one ballot paper. However, we have examined the lessons in the Gould report and want to ensure that we combine the elections in such a way as to minimise the opportunity for confusion. Ron Gould said that combining elections would not be his preference—I am quoting him fairly—but he is confident that the scope for confusion is nothing like the situation in 2007. He is fairly confident that the elections and the referendum will be organised sensibly and competently. I think that our combination provisions achieve that.
Mr McCann
I am very grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for giving way again. Does not he accept that in Scotland we will have a first-past-the-post election for the Scottish Parliament, the alternative vote system, and then we must explain to people that there is also a yes/no vote? It would be fine if we had only the yes/no vote—that is straightforward—but there are additional complications. Does not the point that he has just made concede my point? That is the point that he must grasp.
Mr Harper
No, because no new electoral systems will be invented next year. People will vote in the Scottish Parliament elections in the same way as they did previously, with the addition of a relatively simple yes or no question on the voting system for this House. Voters may prove us wrong, but I think that they are perfectly capable of making such decisions at the same time as voting in Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament or English council elections, and of differentiating the polls. Clearly, that requires good organisation on the ground and good communication. The Electoral Commission is aware of that; that is why it will write to every household to set out clearly in each of the devolved parts of the UK details of the elections that are taking place, the referendum and the procedures, so that people are clear about it. The yes and no campaigns obviously bear part of that responsibility too.
Mr Harper
I have dealt with the point that the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) made, perhaps not to his satisfaction, but at length. I have a few more sentences and I am done. Hon. Members can make their own speeches then. I have been reasonably generous in giving way.
The territorial orders were tabled today. When the Committee stage is complete we will table the amendments, as I promised hon. Members last week, so that the House can debate them to reflect the new territorial orders—
Mr Harper
The territorial orders have been laid before the House, and are therefore available to Members. They are not amendable, but it is possible for the House to vote them down, in which case we would simply revert to the combination provisions that we are discussing. If the House votes for them, and for our amendments next week, we will have been able to debate all the rules that will be in place next year, and will not have left it to their lordships.
Chris Bryant
However, neither the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments nor the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee in the House of Lords has yet considered the orders. I presume that the House will not consider the three territorial orders in Committee this week, nor will the House have disposed of them among the remaining Orders of the Day before next Monday. It surely cannot be possible to table amendments to legislation regarding other legislation that has not yet come into existence.
Mr Harper
As I set out earlier in this debate, clearly it would not have been sensible for us to table changes to the Bill to reflect orders that had not yet been laid before the House, but they have been laid before the House today, so—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that they have not been agreed. I have said that they have not been agreed, but they have been laid before the House—both of them under the affirmative procedure, so they have to be voted for. If this House or the other place were to vote them down, we would revert to the rules that exist already. We would then be able to go back to the provisions that I am explaining today, which will have been debated in this Committee. Either way, this House will have had the opportunity, on this Bill, to debate the provisions that will be in place for elections next year. That is what I committed to arrange, and that is important.
Mr Harper
I know that the hon. Gentleman is going to find whatever convoluted way he can to try to pretend that that is not the case, but on any reasonable reading of the situation, we have ensured that before the Bill leaves this place, this House will have had the opportunity to debate the provisions, rather than leaving that to the other place.
Chris Bryant
It does not need to be convoluted; it is pretty straightforward. I presume that the Minister will agree with me that the law on combination of polls in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales next Monday will be precisely the same as it is today, so we will not be able to debate amendments to anything other than speculative legislation that will not have been carried by then and will therefore not be the law.
Mr Harper
It is correct that that legislation will not have been carried by the House, but it will be available for Members to debate. There are two scenarios: either the House will approve the orders that my right hon. Friends have laid before the House today—in which case the amendments that we will table once the Committee stage is finished, which we will debate on Report next week, will come into force—or the House will vote those orders down, in which case we will revert to what we are talking about today. In either situation, this House will have had the opportunity to debate those provisions—I suspect at length—and they will therefore not be left to the upper House.
We have tried hard to ensure that the elected House has been able to debate both the provisions on the referendum and those on boundaries. If I remember rightly, in the previous Parliament, in which I served, the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member were not so fastidious about ensuring that this House was able to debate provisions. Significant pieces of legislation went to the other place without any debate at all on enormous portions of it. To the extent that it has been within the power of the Government, we have taken great care to ensure that by the time this legislation leaves this House next Tuesday, all the key issues will have been debated and voted on by this House. We may not have achieved perfection, but we have made a pretty good stab at it, and I have to say—honestly—that what we have done is a considerable improvement on much of what the previous Government did. I would ask Members to bear that in mind.
The provisions on postal voting in local elections in Northern Ireland are changed substantially by one of the orders laid today, so it would not have been sensible to deal with that in the current group of amendments. However, to finish on a point that I hope will bring the hon. Gentleman great cheer, I can confirm that no amendments will be necessary in relation to the combination provisions for Wales, as the changes to be made to the rules governing the conduct of the Welsh Assembly elections do not affect any rules relevant to combination with the referendum. On that note, which I am sure will gladden his heart, let me conclude by saying that the combination provisions that we have provided are necessary for the smooth running of all the polls that are scheduled to take place next May.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the Minister for giving us some of the detail on the amendments, although he has not given all of it, which is significant. I would like to start by picking up where he finished—on the due process that needs to be followed in relation to anything when it reflects the representation of the people, constitutional matters, or the constitutional relationship between Westminster and the devolved Administrations, but which has not, I believe, been followed in this case.
Of course, there should first be pre-legislative scrutiny, but, as we have heard, the Bill has had absolutely none. It is true that the Government published the Bill, but it exists not because of some grand constitutional principle but because of some naked partisan gerrymandering of a Bill. I am sure that if it had been published in pre-legislative form, so that a Committee of this House or a Joint Committee of both Houses had been able to consider it, that Committee would have said, right at the beginning, “You shouldn’t be spatchcocking together these two elements of the Bill”—[Interruption.] Or, “You shouldn’t be kebabbing the legislation in this way.” The Parliamentary Secretary helps me. It is not really spatchcocking; it is more kebabbing. It requires more of an inner-city image than a rural image; he is quite right.
Chris Ruane
Why does my hon. Friend think there has been such undue haste in rushing the Bill, or Bills, through the House?
Chris Bryant
This is entirely speculative, but it might be something to do with the Bill acting as the Araldite that holds the coalition together. The fact is, however, that the Deputy Prime Minister—or Sandie Shaw, as we normally know her, or him, now—is so Araldited to the Prime Minister that there is probably no need for the Bill to be introduced in precisely this way.
There should have been pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. I am sure that a Joint Committee would have said that it should not have been constituted in this way, and that it was inappropriate to try to foist combined polls on Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland when they had expressly said that they did not want a combination of a referendum and their own elections, especially in Northern Ireland, where on the same day there will be local elections as well as Assembly elections. I am pretty certain that such a Committee would have found that inappropriate.
Indeed, we can be pretty confident of that because the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), made it absolutely clear that it believed that it had not had enough time to consider the Bill before it suddenly had its Second Reading. The Select Committee had only five days in which to read the Bill and to get constitutional experts to talk to its members and provide evidence. Those witnesses themselves thought that it was inappropriate that such haste was being adopted.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
May I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the report from the Welsh Affairs Committee that came out today? No doubt he will already have read it in detail. It reaches precisely the same conclusion as he has drawn. The Committee has a Government majority, but it nevertheless concluded that the Bill was being railroaded through with undue haste, and with completely insufficient scrutiny by this House. It also believed that it would have a significant constitutional impact on Wales. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a disgrace?
Chris Bryant
I do not agree with my hon. Friend if he is suggesting that the Committee’s report is a disgrace, because it is excellent in highlighting the implications for Wales of the Government’s proposals on constitutional reform. But my neighbourly Friend makes a good point: the Committee is not comprised of rabid left-wingers—or, for that matter, entirely of members of the Labour party—and those who voted on this matter, those who turned up, were predominantly Conservatives. In fact, one of them is now a Parliamentary Private Secretary. Many of us deprecate the fact that there are PPSs sitting on Select Committees, but I note that the PPS who sits on this one chose to absent himself from the vote. I can presume only that that was because he agreed with the findings of the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) is absolutely right to say that the Committee makes it clear that there has not been adequate scrutiny of the Bill, particularly in regard to Wales. It also makes the wider point about the amount of time that has been allowed in general.
Mr David
My hon. Friend has many neighbourly friends. He puts his finger on a crucial point about the speed with which this Bill is being introduced. Does he agree that not only that a number of Conservative Members sit on the Welsh Affairs Committee but that, significantly, its Chairman is a Conservative?
Chris Bryant
Yes, and I not think anybody could call the Committee’s Chair a patsy. He is a man of fierce independence—sometimes overly fierce, and sometimes overly independent—and the Select Committee’s findings were extremely clear. It reported:
“The Government is determined to pass this legislation quickly in order that the referendum on the Parliamentary electoral system can take place in May 2011. However, we agree with the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee”,
which, incidentally, does not have a Labour majority on it either,
“that the Bill has been given insufficient time for proper scrutiny. ”
It continued:
“The Welsh Grand Committee gives all Welsh Members the opportunity fully to debate issues relating to Wales. That the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill impacts significantly on Wales is clear. In the light of this, we consider the Secretary of State for Wales’s decision not to convene a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee in this instance to be very disappointing.”
Conservative Members are attacking a Conservative Secretary of State for Wales. It seems extraordinary that the Committee has not had an adequate opportunity to consider the Welsh element of the Bill, particularly the Welsh elements that are before us this afternoon, which are extensive.
Let me make another point about the proper process that should have been observed. We believe in pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation on any constitutional Bill, but this Bill additionally affects elections in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The previous elections for the Scottish Parliament led to significant problems, which my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) mentioned. This shows how important it is to have proper consultation with each of the devolved Administrations. By that, I mean, first and foremost, consultation “from Government to Government” as it were—that is, the Westminster Government speaking to the Scottish Executive, to Ministers in Northern Ireland and to the Welsh Assembly Government. That could have happened confidentially on a “Government to Government” basis; there is absolutely no reason why that should not have happened.
As I understand it, prior to the comprehensive spending review, extensive confidential discussions took place between relevant Ministers so that Ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland knew more than this House did about what elements would affect their budgets. I have no complaint about that happening with the comprehensive spending review; my argument is that it should apply to the devolved Administrations in respect of this Bill.
Mr Harper
As I have said in response to interventions from other Members, the devolved Administrations—and even the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies—do not have a role in delivering elections. Although, as I have said, the position will change for Scotland, the Secretary of State is responsible for administering elections. The hon. Gentleman may not like that, but it is the position and we have worked closely with the territorial offices to ensure that procedures for the referendum work closely with the procedures for elections. That is the position.
Chris Bryant
Of course I understand the legal position. Local elections may or may not be happening at the same time in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—they will happen across Northern Ireland but perhaps only because of a by-election in Scotland or Wales—but the Assemblies have a degree of responsibility for the conduct of the elections to the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Bill decouples the Welsh Assembly constituencies from the parliamentary constituencies so that the Government are able to reduce the number of seats in Wales by 25%. I would have thought that that creates an additional need to consult.
I think that there should have been consultation at two levels. There should have been a degree of consultation at ministerial level, but, because these issues affect the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly in their entirety, it would have been common courtesy to consult the Assemblies and the Parliament as Assemblies and a Parliament. In respect of European legislation, we now have a standard and proper process of consultation between the relevant European Committees in the House of Commons and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In respect of the Bill, however, there has been no adequate consultation either with the Parliament and Assemblies or with Ministers.
Mark Tami
The point, surely, is not who has the legal responsibility, but who has the experience. There should have been plenty of consultation—certainly in Scotland—enabling Ministers to learn from that experience, and to decide on the basis of it whether it would be appropriate to hold the referendum and elections on the same day.
Chris Bryant
Obviously that is the case. I should have thought that, given that none of the Ministers in either of the teams affected represents a Welsh, Scottish or Northern Ireland seat, it would have been more important for them to consult the relevant devolved Administrations just to be able to get the position right.
Cathy Jamieson
Was it not worrying to hear the Minister say that even if the Scottish Parliament passed a resolution that made clear that it did not support the Bill, he would not take account of that and would not change his mind in any way?
Chris Bryant
The Government came to power arguing that coalition politics were somehow better for Britain. Whatever we may think of that proposition, if they are then not prepared to extend the courtesy beyond the internal dynamics of the coalition to others who are engaged in the political endeavour, they have let down their own basic first principles.
Of course the wish to foist a referendum on the same day as elections elsewhere is extraordinary, especially given that the people who now sit on the Government Benches are the people who criticised the Labour party most for the way in which the last combination of elections took place in Scotland.
Chris Ruane
Does my hon. Friend agree that the way in which the current Administration have dealt with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—
Chris Ruane
This is my intervention, if my hon. Friend does not mind!
Are not the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales behaving more like governors-general than Secretaries of State?
Chris Bryant
To be honest, I think that they are behaving more like satraps.
I think it extraordinary that there has not been proper consultation, and I do not understand why the referendum has to be held in May next year. It is pretty clear that in the respective Governments, Assemblies and Parliaments there is a firm view that it should not take place at the same time as the elections. Although most people in Wales do not view a Welsh Assembly election in quite the same way as a general election for the whole United Kingdom, many will refer to it as a Welsh general election. That is why it is so extraordinary that the people of Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland have not been shown the same degree of respect as would have been extended to anyone else. That, I think, slightly betrays the rather London-centric view of the Government. I suspect that if there were a free vote on the Bill, many fewer Conservatives and Liberal Democrats would vote for it than will go through the Lobby later today. In particular, I should be surprised if a single Welsh Member voted for it.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) wants to intervene. Oh no, I am sorry—I am giving way to a Scottish man next.
Jim McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He mentioned that some of his constituency neighbours are also his political friends. I hope I will be able to stand up and say that one day, because at present not many of my political neighbours are political friends.
As I am sure my hon. Friend will be aware, the local government elections in Scotland have been moved back a year to ensure that they do not conflict with the Scottish general election. Government Members claim it is offensive to the intelligence of the Scottish people to say that holding polls on the same day would be confusing, but it is offensive to the author of the Gould report for them to say they will not accept his recommendations.
Chris Bryant
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope that one day he will have more friends in neighbouring constituencies, which I think means that we will have to win some more Labour seats in Scotland. The key point is that, on the whole, it is better not to combine polls. I fully accept that the Minister has referred today—as have several other Members in previous debates—to the situation in the United States of America. It has an election day and the vast majority of elections are held on one single day. We have not gone down that route, and thus far it has been thought to be inappropriate to combine them on the same day, especially where a variety of different electoral systems are involved. I hope to come on to some of the specific problems of that.
Angela Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way to an English woman on this point. Does he agree that in this instance it is not just that two different polls are to be held on the same day, but that one of them is an election and the other is a referendum, and as referendums have completely different processes from those for elections, that will complicate things and could well cause confusion?
Chris Bryant
Indeed, and I will come on to some of the specific problems that could arise. My hon. Friend did not add, however, that they are on completely different franchises as well. The Minister seems to think that the franchise for the next general election will be the same as the franchise for the referendum. They will not be, however, because of the inclusion of peers in the referendum. It has to be said that we do not have many peers in the Rhondda, however. We have one: Baroness Gale of Blaenrhondda who, unfortunately, is in hospital at the moment—she is across the road at St Thomas’—and I wish her well. There will be confusion in respect of the different franchises and issues such as whether we have the same register or two registers, and I will talk about those specific issues a little later.
The Minister referred to all the schedules before us and how we will address them, and he said that the territorial Departments for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have today—I presume that means since the beginning of the debate this afternoon—tabled the statutory instruments that are required fully to combine the polls in each of the areas. There is no provision in statute for the combination of polls in Northern Ireland, whether for local government and Assembly elections or any other kind of elections. In Scotland, there is provision by virtue of an order, which I think was introduced in 2007, hanging off the Scotland Act 1998. That order makes it clear that local elections and parliamentary elections can be combined, but in fact it has now been decided not to combine them. In Wales, the situation is different again, because a 2007 order on the representation of the people and the Welsh Assembly makes provision to combine local elections and Welsh Assembly elections, but until now there has been no provision to enable the combining of referendums and elections.
The dangers of combining referendums are completely different from the dangers of combining elections. That is why the Government have had to introduce these statutory instruments to make provision for the referendums to be combined in each of the three territorial areas. Unfortunately, that is not the legislation that exists today, so these instruments have been tabled without, as far as I know, having been sent in advance to anybody involved in this Committee or anybody in the shadow offices in relation to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and without the Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly having been consulted on them; they have simply been published. I presume the Minister will be tabling things tomorrow, once we have finished in Committee, and he will then table a series of new amendments, which we will be able to debate on Report. I simply say that such an approach puts the horse before the cart.
Mark Tami
My hon. Friend finished on the point that I was going to make. Does he agree that the Government are clearly just making this up as they go along? At last Thursday’s business questions, even the Leader of the House was unable to confirm whether the affirmative procedure would be used or whether the instruments would be taken on the Floor of the House. Perhaps my hon. Friend could update us on whether he has been given more information.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The proper process for a statutory instrument is that, first, consideration is given to whether it should be taken on the Floor of the House or in Committee. Given that all three of these statutory instruments relate to elections and are of a constitutional nature, my preference, and that of Labour Members, is for them to be taken on the Floor of the House and not in some Committee without general public scrutiny. Secondly, statutory instruments have to be considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which has a limited remit but can examine whether the affirmative or the negative resolution process should be used. Last week, as my hon. Friend rightly says, Ministers, including the Leader of the House, did not seem to have the faintest idea whether or not these would be subject to the affirmative procedure. I am glad to say that the Minister has now made it clear today—
Chris Bryant
He has now made it clear, and we are deeply grateful to him, that these instruments will be dealt with by the affirmative procedure. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) received a letter to that effect—I was copied into it—on Friday.
We also need to consider what their lordships should do. I contend that we should proceed steadily, rather than at a gallop, on constitutional reform. That means, first, that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee in the House of Lords should go through their processes. We should then decide on the Floor of this House whether we agree the order, as should the House of Lords. That process is particularly important because these orders are not amendable and so we ought to ensure that we have a proper process in place before we reach the Report stage—I do not see how we can consider matters on Report until that has been done.
Angela Smith
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case about the lack of proper consultation and process on these proposals. If we had had such a thorough consultation and procedure in this place it would have allowed us to consider not only the principles but the various costs of holding the referendum, whether or not it be on the same day as the other polls. That is a very important principle in the context of last week’s spending review.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One sadness about the way in which the business ends up having to be transacted today is that because the Government have constructed this in the form of a new clause with four new schedules attendant upon it, the votes on the schedules will be separated from the votes on the new clause—unless, Ms Primarolo, you are going to allow us to proceed in a slightly different way from how these matters are normally conducted. I understand that we will end up having a debate on new clause 7 before we proceed to votes on the new schedules, rather than having a separate debate on the new schedules. That is precisely because of how the Government have constructed their approach to the amendments.
It is also worth pointing out that the Government have not put minor amendments before us today. New schedule 2, which refers to England, is 35 pages long, as is new schedule 3, which relates to Wales. New schedule 4 is 37 pages long—Scotland gets rather more than Wales or England—and new schedule 5, on Northern Ireland, is just 19 pages long. I presume that the Minister’s final throwaway comments on postal voting in Northern Ireland, which he made swiftly at the end of his speech, are why the number of pages on Northern Ireland is substantially smaller than the number on Scotland and Wales, and that he intends to introduce significant amendments at a later stage. Obviously, I do not believe that that should be next week—I think it should be once the statutory instruments have been considered and, if necessary, approved. However, that is all the more reason for us to ensure that the Northern Ireland statutory instrument is debated on the Floor of the House before Report.
Ian Lucas
One particular aspect of the franchise relating to the alternative vote referendum and the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament elections concerns me. Is the referendum franchise made up of the same franchise as the general election or as the Assembly election? As my hon. Friend will know, those two franchises are different.
Chris Bryant
It is neither A nor B—in fact, it is C. It is a new creation. The franchise for the AV referendum will be, broadly speaking, the same as that for a general election—that is, it will not include EU citizens—but will include, rather exceptionally, peers, including a peer who is able to have that vote only by virtue of their having a business interest in the City of London. A particularly bizarre franchise has been invented, which is why we tried to amend some of the elements of it in a previous discussion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) makes a good point. In many polling districts, the register will be substantially different. In Newport, for instance, 1,000 voters will be able to vote in the Assembly elections but not in the referendum. I am not sure how many voters will be able to vote in the referendum but not in the Assembly elections by virtue of their being peers.
Chris Bryant
Indeed. There is a series of complications that I shall come on to, if my hon. Friend will bear with me for a while. Amendments specifically refer to that point, but they amend the Government’s new schedules rather than the new clause, and I want first to deal with the amendments to new clause 20 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, other colleagues and me.
The first amendment is amendment (a) to new clause 20. I realise that some hon. Members might be slightly confused that there are lots of amendments (a) in this group, because some refer to the new clause and some to each of the new schedules. Amendment (a) to Government new clause 20 states:
“Where the date of the poll for a local authority election in England is the same as the date of the poll for the referendum, the polls are to be taken together.”
That is narrower than that which the Government have provided. The Government are suggesting that the polls can happen together when there is the referendum, and a local authority election in England, and a local referendum in England, and a mayoral election in England. In other words, it is theoretically possible that, if we stick with the Government’s proposal, one voter might come in to vote on the referendum on AV, a local authority election, a local referendum and a mayoral election all at the same time. It is one thing to consider all this in relation to someone coming into a polling station, and people might conclude that it is perfectly legitimate—that there is the franchise for the AV referendum, which we have already discussed, and the franchise for all three other issues, which would be the same—but what happens with postal votes for all those polls? If there are four postal votes and four polling cards, that provides a right old tagliatelle of a constitutional settlement for ordinary voters to try to sort out. That is why our amendment, instead of allowing all four polls at the same time, would allow only a local authority election in England to happen at the same time as the referendum. We do not think that is ideal, but at least it would tidy things up a little. I very much hope that the Minister will accede to that amendment.
Amendment (b) would also amend new clause 20 in relation to Northern Ireland. The Government propose:
“Where the date of the poll for one or more of the following is the same as the date of the poll for the referendum, the polls are to be taken together—
(a) a Northern Ireland Assembly Election;
(b) a Northern Ireland local election.”
In other words, they are providing for all three to happen at the same time. Up to now, there has been no legal provision enabling that to happen in Northern Ireland, which is why the Government are bringing forward relevant statutory instruments. We do not believe it is right to have all three elections at the same time, so we suggest, in a consensual way, that the Government might at least limit the combinations to a degree by taking one of the polls out of the measure.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
A few minutes ago, my hon. Friend was very critical of the Government’s lack of consultation with the devolved interests, but who in Northern Ireland has he consulted regarding his amendment, which would prevent local elections from taking place on the same day as the referendum and Assembly elections? People in Northern Ireland have said that they do not want the referendum on the same day, and that they want the two elections together, but his amendment would mean that the elections could not take place on the same day.
Chris Bryant
The difficulty that we have as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition is that if I had tabled an amendment to that effect, it would have been ruled out of order and would not have been considered because we have already debated, in relation to clause 1, amendments on separating the referendum from those elections. I fully understand my hon. Friend’s point and there have been extensive conversations on the amendment over the weekend with a wide variety of his friends and others in Northern Ireland. The point that we are trying to make is fairly simple: combining everything on the same day brings not clarity for voters but more obscurity.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Let me endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and make it clear that we have no difficulty with the date of the referendum being moved but that we certainly do not agree with the date of the Assembly and council elections being moved from their current scheduled date next May.
Chris Bryant
For the most part, we agree that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Broadly speaking, we agree that where it has been determined that elections should take place on a four-yearly or other basis, and advance notice of their date has been given, it would be inappropriate to move them. Our point is that the referendum should not be on the same day as all those elections. I hope that he understands our reasoning; I think we are moving in the same direction.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unfortunately, this is one issue on which, notwithstanding the changes that have taken place in relation to the Backbench Business Committee, there has not been much change of heart in the way that business is brought before the House. Government Members say that Labour was appalling when it was in government because it took things through at too great a speed and sometimes did not allow enough time for consultation, but they have been preaching to us since May about the new politics. I should have thought, in the context of the new politics, that major, significant constitutional reform that will affect different parts of the Union in different ways and that will change in myriad ways the way in which the House is elected should be given proper time. That means proceeding more like a stately galleon than a coyote.
Ian Lucas
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Does he agree that the consultation is even more important because the proposal for the alternative vote referendum was in neither the Liberal Democrat nor the Conservative manifesto and because there is no electoral mandate for it?
Chris Bryant
Again, I agree with my hon. Friend: the Bill was in nobody’s manifesto and that is why it seems like a piece of kebab legislation. It has been bunged together to provide the Araldite that the coalition otherwise would not have.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would have been difficult to have pre-legislative scrutiny of whatever legislation was brought forward at this time? Is he suggesting that we should have a period at the beginning of a Parliament in which there is no legislation at all?
Chris Bryant
If we are talking about this legislation, then, yes, probably. The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point: there is a difficult period at the beginning of a Parliament in which a Government have to go from standing still to providing legislation. I fully understand that, but it is ill-advised to introduce major constitutional legislation at that time. I do not understand the rush with this legislation. I presume he hopes that it will not be needed until 2015, if AV is agreed to and the constituencies are all redrawn, because I am sure that he supports the five-year terms in the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. There is no particular rush and this could all have been done at a slightly more leisurely pace. That would have improved the general feel of the way in which the Government are conducting this constitutional reform. Let us be clear: the party that would like to help, in some regards, those who want to reform the way in which we do politics in this country is sitting on the Opposition side of the House. The hon. Gentleman and I could be allies on many issues of constitutional reform, but the way in which the Government, particularly the Deputy Prime Minister, have approached many of these issues has made that far more difficult for us.
Chris Bryant
I give way to my hon. Friend, who probably does not agree with my last sentence.
John Mann
I do not agree with my hon. Friend’s use of the adjective “ill-advised”. A more appropriate description might be “anti-democratic and gerrymandering in order to hold together this fragile and useless coalition.” I point out that in a by-election last Thursday, the Liberals’ share of the vote fell to 2% in my area.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is almost getting into Rhondda territory. I think there is only one parliamentary constituency in which both the Conservatives and the Liberals have lost their deposits in the past 10 years—the Rhondda. [Interruption.] That was not at this general election, but the last one. I am sure that we will return to that situation at the next general election.
Returning to the Northern Ireland issue, the Government want everything to happen on the same day next May, but we think that is inappropriate and that is why we have tabled these amendments. We have tabled two other amendments to new clause 20: amendments (c) and (d). Amendment (c) would leave out lines 35 to 39, concerning a local referendum and a mayoral election in England. The Minister might enlighten us later on why the Government felt it necessary to include those measures. Are they expecting mayoral elections or local referendums on that date? If there are to be local referendums in England on the same day as an AV referendum, there will be a right old muddle. Most voters do not spend their waking hours, let alone their sleeping hours, worrying about the constitutional settlement in Britain. For the most part, they are more interested in other aspects of their lives than in the political machinations of Westminster or any other part of the constitution. That is why they often choose not to focus on the specifics until a late stage in the process. I am sure we have all had people come up to us two days before an election, saying, “I’m not registered to vote but I really want to vote in the election.” I am glad that one of the changes we introduced during the past 13 years was to make it easier for people to register after an election had been called. Far more people now register.
I am also glad that we made it easier for people to obtain postal votes. In the past, if someone wanted to vote by post, they had to have the application signed off by a medical practitioner of some kind, and in many parts of the country doctors and nurses charged £6 to sign the form. That meant that large numbers of poorer voters did not apply for a postal vote and were disfranchised, which is why it is all the more important to make sure there is clarity and consistency in the Bill.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend missed something from his list—the possibility of a council tax referendum. The Government have removed their capping powers, and are making provision for local referendums when local authorities want to increase council tax above a certain level.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend knows more about local elections in England than I do, so he will correct me if I am wrong, but I presumed that such referendums would be included in the local referendums in England category. However, he is right: a series of different propositions may be put to people. Following the comprehensive spending review last week, which included a drastic attack on local government funding, many local authorities will be worrying about whether they should spend £10,000 on a registration campaign, to make sure that as many people as possible are on the register, or whether they should spend the money on keeping a swimming pool open or on some other element of their services. They may decide that the only way to protect the public services they believe local people want will be to ensure that they hold a referendum on whether they should increase the amount of money that comes in from council tax.
I used to be a local government development officer for the Labour party, so I understand the argument that because between 75% and 80% of the local government budget is provided by the Government, it does not easily allow local democracy to flourish. However, if local referendums on those powers were held in May next year, it would add even greater complexity, as I think my hon. Friend was suggesting.
We have tabled several amendments to new schedule 2, and I shall go through them in order. However, because of the way in which the Government have structured the amendments, it is quite complicated for most ordinary Members to understand precisely where they are. When we consider amendments to clauses, new clauses or schedules, there are line numbers on the page, but not for new schedules. Consequently, in a lengthy new schedule of 35 pages, it is sometimes difficult to find the specific provisions to which the amendments refer.
Our first amendment is (a), on the notice for combined polls in England. It relates to paragraph 11, which Members can find on page 757 of the amendment paper. We suggest that there is no reason why the Government should insist that notice of poll be provided on the 15th day before the poll, when the 28th day before would perfectly easily give substantially more notice, so our amendment would replace “15th” with “28th”.
Our second amendment—(b)—relates to absent voter applications. Several Members have referred to postal and proxy voters, who constitute absent voters. A key issue is that someone might believe they had applied for a postal vote in respect of all elections and polls—anything on which they can vote. They might not draw a distinction between an election and a referendum; they have decided never to go to a polling station, and they prefer to vote by post. However, that is not actually what the provision is. Although some people might explicitly choose an all-elections postal vote, but not want a postal vote for referendums, such a situation is pretty unlikely, which is why our amendment states:
“An application under regulation 51(4)b of the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, SI 2001/341, for an absent vote must state whether it is made for parliamentary elections, local government elections, referendums or all of them.”
People should be able to sign up to all of them, otherwise they will encounter terrible complexity not just when they ask for a postal vote, but also on polling day. As we know, some people lose their postal vote, some cannot send it on time and others may leave it until fairly late because they are uncertain how to vote and end up bringing the postal vote to the polling station. If someone has a postal vote for one poll but not for another, there may be considerable complexity about precisely what they are allowed to do.
Andrew Gwynne
In my constituency, a not insubstantial number of people are registered for a postal vote only for local elections, and not necessarily because they are EU residents who are unable to vote in a general election. Although they opted to register for a postal vote only for the local elections, they will expect a postal vote both for those elections and for the referendum and will be disappointed when they receive a ballot paper only for the council elections. Does my hon. Friend think there ought to be more publicity to make such people aware that they will not be able to vote by post in the referendum?
Chris Bryant
Yes, I agree. In addition, someone could have applied for a postal vote for one or other of the elections—the referendum, or the Assembly or Scottish Parliament elections. When their postal vote arrives for one of the elections, they might presume that it is the only election happening that day—most people do not obsess about whether there will be more than one election on a given date. They might feel they had been told that was their only chance to vote, so they would vote only in one or other of the elections. That is another complexity that could arise, which is why later on I shall refer to some of the amendments we have tabled on polling cards. We have to follow through the whole process. At the moment, I am referring to new schedule 2 as it relates to England, but later I shall discuss Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, where some of the same issues could arise, albeit in a slightly different format.
Chris Bryant
Undoubtedly so, and that is one reason for my proposal. However, we sometimes overstate our concerns about the cost of elections. It is sometimes more important to say that we need the right regulations to provide clarity to voters. Holding several polls at the same time in the same polling station or by postal ballot adds complexity, which is not in the interests of good democracy. Incidentally, I am sure that if any of the hon. Members who act as observers of elections in other countries saw that situation, they would say, “The provision of postal votes was a complete and utter mess.”
John Mann
I accept my hon. Friend’s point that cost is not everything, but that is not what we have heard from those on both sides of the House in recent times. Does he agree that there is also an opportunity cost, because the returning officer and his or her staff will lose time on additional bureaucracy in the important run-up period to an election when they should be engaging properly with the electorate if the Government, with their ongoing lack of common sense, fail to accept amendment (b)?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, I was recently subjected to the complexity into which returning officers sometimes go. Westminster council has now sent me eight missives in relation to the postal vote in Westminster. I never exercise my vote in London because my vote is in the Rhondda, which is my home. However, I had to register in my property in London, which I rent. People have to return the form to say whether—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) wants to intervene, I am quite happy to give way to him.
Chris Bryant
No. He is just going to continue chuntering. Fine.
My point is that quite often, voters must go through an unnecessarily onerous process to register for a postal vote. Likewise, the returning officer goes through far too many hoops. Sometimes it makes sense to make administrative savings when one can.
Amendment (c) to new schedule 2 is on the colour of ballot papers. Hon. Members might think that that is a recondite subject for a Bill, but notwithstanding the Minister’s remarks last week—he said that he did not want to tell returning officers precisely what to do at any point—the law already makes provisions on it, including in new schedule 2.
Government new schedule 2, which relates only to England, would simply state:
“The ballot papers used for the referendum must be of a different colour from the ballot papers used for any relevant election.”
That is sensible, because people might get two ballot papers when they arrive to vote—one for the referendum and one for the local election—and we want to ensure that the papers go into their respective ballot boxes. Different colours of ballot paper would make it easier for people to do that. However, in amendment (c), we are suggesting that it would be sensible for the same colour ballot paper to be used for the referendum throughout the United Kingdom. I suspect that the Electoral Commission will produce publicity on the referendum and encourage people to vote—not how to vote—and it would be helpful if it could refer to the colour of the ballot paper. The only way for that to happen is for the chief counting officer to decide the colour of the referendum ballot paper. The Government could then follow that up by providing that other ballot papers must be a different colour.
That is why, in amendment (c), we propose to remove paragraph 15 of new schedule 2 and insert:
“The Chief Counting Officer shall select the colour of the ballot paper used for the referendum…The other ballot papers used for any relevant election shall be of a different colour from that selected by the Chief Counting Officer.”
Cathy Jamieson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Will he invite the Minister to ensure that the colour selected for the referendum ballot paper is not a colour that is traditionally used in Scottish Parliament elections?
Chris Bryant
That makes sense. If we had had enough time to go through this process at a slightly more leisurely pace, it would have been possible to consult on and agree to all such things. If the proposals were generally accepted, there would be a rather better feeling about the Bill.
We toyed with tabling an amendment to seek to determine the colour of the ballot paper, but we decided against that bearing in mind what the Minister said last week about leaving some decisions to officers. I have received representations from people who say that it would be inappropriate to use on the ballot paper a colour that is normally used by a political party, because we would then get into the complexities of defining which is a major political party and which is not, and what colours relate to them, which is a problem not least because I am not sure whether the Liberal Democrats are yellow or orange these days. I note that the Minister is wearing a Liberal Democrat tie today—it is mostly yellow but with little bits of blue.
Amendment (d) to new schedule 2 is on official poll cards. In new schedule 2, the Government state:
“If the counting officer thinks fit, the official poll cards used for the referendum and for the relevant elections may be combined.”
The problem is this: how is the counting officer to determine whether he or she “thinks fit”? Why ought we to allow that degree of freedom locally when it might make a material difference to the conduct of the ballot or referendum? We propose that:
“The official poll cards used for the referendum and for the relevant elections must be combined for all electors qualified to vote in all the polls.”
We all get a lot of junk mail these days. The danger is that voters will be confused if they receive two or three—or potentially four, five or six—polling cards for the different elections that are happening at the same time. They will not see how one affects the other. It would be far more sensible, wherever there is a combined poll, for the official poll cards to make it absolutely clear how many votes must be cast, how many elections there are, whether the voter has a postal vote, how they go about registering for a postal vote and so on. Our proposal would mean that there is clarity on a single piece of paper for the ordinary voter rather than a series of polling cards. The Government should make clear the nature of the franchise for each election and poll. As a proposed amendment to new schedule 2, amendment (d) relates exclusively to England.
Mr Tom Harris
I seek to be helpful. Will my hon. Friend explain why it is so important that someone who receives a polling card is made aware of the extent of the franchise for that election? If they are aware that they can vote, does it matter if they are aware of the extent of the franchise in a particular referendum or election?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is right. I did not mean to say that there should be a treatise on the polling card about the nature of the franchise, how it applies to peers and so on. I was making the point that the card should state clearly that the elector is entitled to vote in all the elections, one of them, two or whatever. It should make it clear that there is more than one ballot taking place at the same time.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the clearest thing of all would be a separate polling card for each election, to enable people to use that polling card to vote in a specific election?
Chris Bryant
I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman is supporting the Government’s position. The Government say that where the counting officer thinks fit, he or she should be allowed to combine the polling cards. Logically, if the hon. Gentleman is to follow his own argument, he should have tabled an amendment that deleted that element and stated that there should always be separate polling cards.
The difficulty is that many people think they must have a polling card to be able to vote, which is not the case. If people have lost one of their polling cards—for instance, their referendum or their local election polling card—the danger is that they will think they are able to vote in one, rather than both. That is why it would be better to combine.
John Mann
I am following my hon. Friend’s logic, though he is beginning to lose me. Surely if there were more than one polling card per election, the chance of losing the polling card would be reduced, and more of our voters would turn out and vote because they have a polling card. Is he not proposing an anti-Labour amendment?
Chris Bryant
It is not those of us on the Opposition Benches who table partisan amendments. Only those on the Government Benches table partisan legislation. It is not my intention to benefit or disbenefit anybody, other than benefiting the ordinary voter who wants to be able to cast their vote in as many elections as they choose.
Mr Dodds
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whether there are combined or separate polling cards, there is a need for the chief electoral officer in all areas, particularly in Northern Ireland, to do more to protect the integrity of all such official documents? We had examples in the last parliamentary election of one party in particular producing its own official polling cards, which caused utter confusion and deceived people. Can we ensure that when the polling cards are produced, proper policing takes place to prevent people from abusing those official cards?
Chris Bryant
If multiple polling cards go to each individual elector, in a household where there are five people living and two elections taking place, that would be 10 polling cards turning up. Apart from anything else, there is quite a strong likelihood that they will all get binned. The other difficulty is that political parties will step into the breach and produce leaflets which say, “You may not want to vote in the AV referendum, or you may want to vote in a particular way, but don’t forget, you’ve also got the Assembly elections.” Different political parties may want to step into the breach in various ways.
Mark Durkan
Surely if we have separate polling cards for each of the polls taking place, whether those are elections or referendums, we will get more of the problem of some cards being delivered and some not, which has been a constant problem in recent elections in Northern Ireland. In my constituency in particular, there has been an ongoing issue concerning postal workers, who feel that they are not getting paid the same for delivering election-related material, whether it is from parties or from the electoral officer. We will only add to those difficulties, which have meant that party material is not delivered.
Chris Bryant
Schedule 2 relates only to England, and the Post Office does not make such deliveries. Most local authorities use council staff to deliver polling cards. That is certainly true in some parts of England. I have a concern that with many fewer council staff, following the cuts that are likely to come, it will be more difficult for them to do so.
My basic point is that the returning officer should make it clear to each voter that they can vote in X election, Y election and the referendum, and that they can take their pick whether they want to take part in all of them, and whether they want to vote by post or turn up. Providing one piece of paper would make more sense than providing two, three, four or whatever to each voter. That might also save paper and administrative costs.
Incidentally, since each polling card must show the voter’s name, address and polling number and the address of the polling station, there is no reason why it should not state clearly which ballots that voter can take part in. That would meet what I think will be quite a complex issue—the fact that the franchise for the referendum is different from that for any of the other elections taking place on the same day.
Still on new schedule 2, which relates to England, our amendment (e) deals with separate ballot boxes. The Government state in paragraph 18:
“(1) If the counting officer thinks fit”—
a phrase they often use—
“the same ballot box may be used at the polls for the referendum and the relevant elections.
(2) Where separate ballot boxes are used, each must be clearly marked to show—
(a) the poll to which it relates, and
(b) the colour of the ballot papers that should be placed in it.”
That is wholly inappropriate. It would make far more sense to have separate ballot boxes for the referendum and for the relevant elections. The Government already say that the colour of the ballot papers should be different, so it would mean greater simplicity for voters to be able to turn up to a polling station, get, let us say, a light green ballot paper for the referendum and a white ballot paper for the local election in England, and see a little sign saying that green ballot papers go into one box and white ballot papers into another. I should have thought that that would make the process of verification of votes simpler for the vast majority of returning officers and counting officers.
John Mann
Aside from the problems that would be caused to those, including Members of the House, who are colour blind, why is my hon. Friend putting such additional complexities on voters, including elderly voters who may well have eyesight problems? Some voters in their 80s or 90s choose to go to the polling station. Why put complications in the system of voting? Where is the logic?
Chris Bryant
I do not think I am making the system more complex. It makes the system more complex if there is just one ballot box for two completely different sets of propositions. There will be two different electoral registers—we will come to the issue of electoral registers later—and those who can vote in one ballot will not be the same as those who can vote in another. To make sure that the ballot is correct, and that people are not given ballot papers when they are not entitled to them, and to make sure that the administration of the counting of the votes can take place properly, it would be better to have separate ballot boxes.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
I dread dragging the debate on any longer than is necessary, but in Burnley at the election in May we had one ballot box for both the local election ballot papers and the general election ballot papers. It caused no trouble whatever. If we had two boxes, the reconciliation of the ballot papers in either box would require them all to be emptied out, because people will make mistakes. I can see no sense in having various ballot boxes. The present system has worked for years. Why change it now?
Chris Bryant
I just think it is simpler to be able to separate them before starting. Of course, if somebody puts the wrong ballot paper in the wrong box, that is not a problem. Some other countries use what the Labour party used for its elections—of the leader of the Labour party, the national executive committee and so on—earlier this year: a single ballot paper covering a multitude of different elections. The voting system used in each of those elections was different, which confused some voters. Instead of a single ballot paper with lots of different elements on it, it is better to have separate ballot papers, and therefore separate ballot boxes.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman think that the system used in Wales for the National Assembly elections needs reforming on that basis, because we have two ballot papers—one for the list and one for the constituency contest? They all go in the same ballot box and are sorted out later.
Chris Bryant
We will come later to the question of which ballots is counted first. The Minister has said that he would like the elections counted first, but it will be difficult to do that until all the ballot boxes have been emptied and all the verification done. It would be swifter if we had a ballot box that, in 99% of cases, contained no mistakes and was for one set of ballot papers and not more.
Andrew Gwynne
May I advise my hon. Friend that the experience in Denton and Reddish on 6 May this year was quite different from that of the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle)? In some of the polling stations, particularly in the Stockport part of my constituency, the ballot boxes were full before the end of the day, leading to the polling clerk having to shove rulers into the ballot boxes to try to make space for extra ballot papers.
Chris Bryant
I have seen the same myself in by-elections in Hackney and council elections elsewhere. That can happen in just one election, so it is far more likely to happen in combined elections, which is why it would be simpler to be able to separate the ballot papers.
Andrew Gwynne
To clarify, on 6 May, we had combined elections in Denton and Reddish, to both Stockport and Tameside metropolitan borough councils and to this place.
Chris Bryant
I am glad that my hon. Friend was returned with a decent majority; there cannot have been too much of a problem. None the less, I think that my amendment would provide greater clarity.
Amendment (f) to new schedule 2, entitled “Combination of polls: England”, relates to the publicity provided in polling stations. Polling stations contain some information about how people are to vote, mark their vote and all the rest of it. Our simple point is that there should be similar information on the referendum. Our amendment reads:
“The Electoral Commission are to supply posters to be displayed in every polling station used for the referendum, which give neutral information on first past the post and alternative vote systems that are the subject of the referendum, subject to agreement by the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission.”
The only additional element that need concern us is our suggestion that the matter be referred to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. We suggest that simply because what might not look to one person like a partisan presentation of the case for the alternative vote or first past the post might do so to the weathered eye of a politician. That is why information should be provided in the polling station. However, anything trying to explain the two voting systems should have been agreed by those here who represent different sides of the argument on the referendum.
Amendment (g) relates to registers. The Government’s measures allow for a single electoral register in the polling station. A voter will come in, provide their name and address—in Northern Ireland, they have to provide more information—or their polling or identifying number, and then be given the relevant number of ballot papers. The problem is, however, that the franchises are different. In Newport, for instance, 1,000 voters will be able to vote in the Welsh Assembly elections who will not be able to vote in the referendum. The Government’s provisions allow for that by suggesting that one mark be made against the names of those voting in all of the elections, and another against those of anyone who chooses not to vote, or who cannot vote, in one or more of them. That will lead to instances in which people are given ballot papers inappropriately. We have all heard of instances when that has happened because there has been a shared register. I therefore urge the Government to accept separate registers for the separate franchises. That is the best way to ensure that there is no inappropriate giving of ballot papers to people who cannot vote in one or other of the polls.
John Mann
On this occasion, my hon. Friend has not lost me with his amendment, although I am astonished at where it has originated. Will he explain exactly how it will be more effective and quicker for staff at a polling station to have two separate registers, given that they will not know which elections people are eligible to vote in, and especially given that, under another of his amendments, voters would have only one polling card to present? Would his amendment (g) not lead to the possibility of queues not just at 10 o’clock but throughout the day, with people trying to find out whether they were eligible to vote, because staff would have to check two registers rather than one?
Chris Bryant
No, what should be happening is this: a voter eligible for one election presents themselves at a polling station and goes to the electoral registration officer, who marks them off on the list and gives them a ballot paper for just one election. If the voter is eligible for the second election, the officer marks them off on the other list and gives them the relevant ballot paper. That is not vastly different. It simply means separate marked registers for each election, which will lead to fewer confusions about who is entitled to vote in each election.
Roger Williams
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the vicinity of the polling station there might be a helpful Liberal Democrat, who could help the voters and point out to them in which elections they could take part?
Chris Bryant
It depends which kind of Liberal Democrat it is. If they are from one side of the street, they will say one thing, and if they are from the other side, they will say exactly the opposite. Anyway, people with rosettes will not be in the polling stations advising people. It is not a good idea for people with partisan affiliations to be telling people whether they can vote when they turn up at a polling station. However, I note that that is the partisan direction in which the Liberal Democrats are going. I had thought better of the hon. Gentleman.
John Mann
I remain mystified, because my hon. Friend is now saying that there is an issue with the marked register. Does the issue with the marked register not relate to how postal votes, particularly late postal votes, are added to the marked register, not to whether a European vote can be identified on the register?
Chris Bryant
I think my hon. Friend misunderstands the situation. The Government want a single register with the officer deciding how many elections a person may vote in. I am suggesting two registers, one for the referendum and one for all the other elections, because the franchise for the elections would be the same. That would provide greater clarity when people are voting. [Interruption.] It would be the same in England. We are discussing new schedule 2, as I am sure the Minister, who is quietly chuntering in his charming way, will acknowledge.
Jake Berry
I should be interested to know how many elections the hon. Gentleman has run, or how many returning officers he has spoken to about the amendments, because they all seem to imply that what he thinks should happen in the election trumps what a returning officer believes should happen in his own election in his own division.
Chris Bryant
No. In relation to some of the measures, we think it important to look at whether there should be uniformity throughout the country for a referendum that applies to the whole country, such as in the colour of ballot papers. Broadly speaking, I think that there should be such uniformity, as does my party. Some of the other amendments are probing, because the aim of legislative scrutiny, especially when the Government have at a late stage tabled 110 pages or so of amendments, is to go through them and ensure that we have made the right decision. The hon. Gentleman is upset because he did not manage to table an amendment to the Government’s proposed changes. He had not spotted that he disagreed with them, but perhaps next time, when another piece of legislation comes forward, he will table one.
Jake Berry
My point is that I do agree with the Government. The returning officer should have the right to make the decision.
Chris Bryant
Well, the hon. Gentleman did not make that point earlier, but if he now agrees with the Government that must be because a Whip has spoken to him—or somehow or other. Anyway, he agrees with the Government, and I am sure that the Minister will be absolutely delighted about that.
Chris Bryant
As my hon. Friend says, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) has obviously become the hon. Member for Damascus. There are quite a lot of them in the Liberal Democrat party as well, so I am sure he and his friends will feel very much at home.
We have also tabled some consequential amendments, such as amendment (h), and that brings us to amendment (i) to new schedule 2, which is entitled, “Combination of Polls: England”. The amendment relates to who is able to attend the count. I accept that I have not consulted widely with returning officers on this matter, because my experience is that different returning officers—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) mouths at me, “What page?” Amendment (i) is on page 790 of the amendment paper, and it reads:
“Paragraph 40, at the end of sub-paragraph (3) insert ‘or
(c) the person is a Member of Parliament.’.”
The amendment would merely allow Members, as of right, to attend the count on the AV referendum. We have not been able to word the amendment, “the person is the Member of Parliament for that constituency”, because thus far we have not won the argument with the Minister about making the count happen at a Westminster parliamentary constituency level, but the amendment would allow Members to attend the count.
Mr Tom Harris
I rise only to remind the Committee and particularly the hon. Member for Damascus about our argument in the previous Parliament which proved there is little point in consulting returning officers on some matters. Even though it was the will of the House that the general election count take place on the night of polling, primary legislation was required to force returning officers to agree to count the ballot papers.
Chris Bryant
I am not quite so negative as my hon. Friend about returning officers, but the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) had an excellent debate in Westminster Hall the other day—[Interruption.] She is not in her place at the moment, but I am sure she will be later.
Chris Bryant
Yes, I was gesturing to the hon. Lady as if she were there, because in spirit she is sitting just over the Minister’s shoulder, keeping a beady eye on him.
My point is that returning officers often have not only the law breathing down their neck, but elected Members who, in particular at the moment, are understandably worried about the financial situation. They will be wondering whether it is better to spend money on electoral registration, the proper running of election counts and buying more polling station equipment, or on keeping a swimming pool open. I understand the pressure on returning officers, who want clarity from Parliament, but sometimes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) said, they are wrong.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend made a very good point about basing the referendum count on parliamentary constituency boundaries. One third of my constituency is in Stockport metropolitan borough and two thirds are in Tameside metropolitan borough, and, were the referendum to be counted on a local authority basis, I would have two counts taking place at the same time.
Chris Bryant
Yes—[Interruption.] The Deputy Leader of the House says that he has that all the time. He obviously likes being “kebabbed” in that way—or perhaps that is spatchcocked, I am not sure.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
That is more spatchcocked.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman agrees.
The point is that our amendment is so drafted because, otherwise, a Member might be able to attend half the count in relation to the referendum on the alternative vote, but not the other half in relation to his constituency. We have tabled the amendment so that any Member of Parliament would be able to attend a referendum count. I would hope that most returning officers would not feel troubled by that, but some have explicitly said that the Member of Parliament is not, as of right, allowed to attend.
We have tabled one further amendment that is of significance and not just consequential on others. Amendment (j) relates to new schedule 2 and is about the priority in counting election papers.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I may have missed this point earlier, but will the referendum votes be counted by ward and then by either local authority or constituency area, or by constituency area or local authority first? Will they be mixed together and counted, or will they be counted by local authority electoral ward first?
Chris Bryant
No, they will not be counted by local authority ward. The procedure is different in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland of course—just to make it easier for everybody. We tabled an amendment saying that it should be done in the same way throughout the whole country. [Interruption.] The Minister says that his provisions would make the procedure easier, but I am not sure that they would. In Wales, the procedure will be based on Assembly constituency boundaries, which are the same as parliamentary boundaries. In England, it will be based on local authority boundaries. In Scotland, it will be based on Scottish parliamentary boundaries, which are not coterminous with Westminster parliamentary boundaries—
Chris Bryant
In Dudley, which is not a separate nation yet, the procedure will be based on local authority boundaries. I cannot remember the provision in relation to Northern Ireland, but I am sure that the Minister will enlighten us. [Interruption.] It will be based on the whole of Northern Ireland; that is right.
On the question of priority when counting votes, we believe, as I think the Minister does, that it is important to count first the ballots for elections in which somebody is standing for office, and the referendum afterwards. If the rules in the Government’s proposed changes are agreed to, however, that will not be entirely possible, because the ballots will first require a degree of verification, and we will have to empty all the ballot boxes in order to do so. None the less, we believe that in order to ensure that counting officers give priority to the counting of ballots cast in the respective elections to the Northern Ireland, Scottish and Welsh devolved Administrations, and to local council elections in each part of the United Kingdom, amendment (j) would need to be added to new schedule 2 in relation to England.
I am sure that you will be aware, Ms Primarolo, that we have tabled similar amendments to new schedules 3, 4 and 5 in relation to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I do not intend to refer to those now, because this is not the last time that the Government will present amendments on this subject, having decided to go through the ludicrous process of having statutory instruments that will not have been considered in advance of next week’s Report stage before they then table additional amendments. I think that that is inappropriate.
Let me refer to the report that was published today by the Welsh Affairs Committee, in which John Turner, the chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators, who, as the hon. Member for Damascus—the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen—will know, is head honcho among returning officers, said that
“drawing on the experience of Scotland in 2007, the AEA considered there was a high possibility for great confusion amongst voters…electoral events, if they are of a different nature, should not take place at the same time. As a matter of policy and principle, we subscribe to that. Therefore, we have concerns about the possible implications for voters in understanding, or being confused by, the different ballot papers they are presented with for different electoral events on the same day.”
We would contend, particularly because of the haste with which the Bill has been brought forward and the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny, that it will be even more difficult for returning officers to be able to do their job in the elections and to provide greater clarity for local voters.
Mr Harris
Has my hon. Friend received any information from the Government about the decision by the Scottish Parliament to move the local authority elections in Scotland back by one year specifically to avoid the confusion encountered in 2007? As the Government now want to have a referendum on the same day as the Scottish Parliament elections, does that mean that they believe that the Scottish Parliament was wrong to move the local elections back by one year?
Chris Bryant
I presume that they must, because that is why we are now going to have all three of these things on the same day in Northern Ireland, despite the experiences in Scotland, which were aggressively excoriated by the Liberal Democrats when they were on the Opposition Benches—although they seem to have forgotten all the speeches that they made then.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the difference is that the Scottish council elections are held under the single transferable vote, so the voter has to number the ballot paper with their first, second and third preferences. In this case, all ballot papers will be marked with a single cross, so the possibility of confusion does not arise as it would if we were having two elections on the same day under different electoral systems.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman is a Liberal Democrat, and I am sure that he knows all about confusion, especially at the moment. I think that he is trying to quibble to end up with a position that he can proudly defend. In 2007, he would probably have been saying that the elections should not have been held at the same time, so he should be advancing the same argument now. However, I leave that for him and his conscience.
The Welsh Affairs Committee cited Lewis Baston, the senior research fellow with Democratic Audit, who argued that the coincidence in 2015—if the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill goes through in the way that the Government intend—of a general election with Assembly elections in Wales and parliamentary elections in Scotland is even more troubling because
“the elections for Westminster and the Assembly would be taking place on different systems”—
precisely the point made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid)—
“on the same day and, more complicatedly, on two sets of boundaries which will hardly ever correlate with each other.”
I am absolutely certain that because the hon. Gentleman is a very honourable gentleman who is always consistent with his arguments, he will therefore vote against provisions in the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill whereby elections in Scotland and Wales are to be held on the same day as the general election. I can see from his smile that I already have his vote in relation to any such amendments.
I am sorry that I have been unable to deal with all the other amendments that we tabled on Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but some of them merely repeat the other amendments to new schedule 2 as regards England. I hope that we will have an opportunity to vote on quite a number of these proposals.
Mr Harper
First, I will pick up several issues raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and other Members, and at the end of my remarks I will ask the Committee to vote for my new clause and new schedules and to vote against all the amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman. For colleagues requiring a simple way of thinking about it, that is what I am asking them to do, and they can now choose whether they want to listen to the rest of my remarks.
Mr Dodds
The Minister says that he is going to recommend to his hon. Friends that they vote against all the amendments. Does that include the amendment about giving priority to the counting of votes for Assembly elections or local elections over the referendum, given that I seem to remember him saying that he would support such a provision?
Mr Harper
We had a debate on this earlier, but I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was in his place at the time. If he can wait until I get to that section of my speech, I will discuss it then. However, we do not think that his amendment is necessary to achieve the outcome on which he and I agree.
Mr Tom Harris
When the Opposition expressed reservations about the rapidity with which the Government were pushing the Bill through, we were assured that a certain number of days on the Floor of the House would be given to the Committee stage to enable Members from all parties to express an opinion. The Minister is now saying that he is recommending opposition to every single amendment tabled by the official Opposition. Is this yet another example of openness and the new politics?
Mr Harper
I have said that I am going to explain why hon. Members should vote against the amendments; I think that there are very good reasons for that. I have listened carefully and at length to the hon. Gentleman, as I have on every day of these debates. I want to use this as a good opportunity to talk about these matters.
I am happy to admit that we may not have reached perfection, but when one considers how we have conducted ourselves on this Bill compared with what Labour did when in government, it is clear that we have made tremendous steps forward in allowing the House time to consider it. Last week the hon. Member for Rhondda referred to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which was a similar kind of Bill, and said we should have allowed a day for each clause of our Bill. If a whole day had been spent on each clause of the CRAG Bill, which had 95 clauses, we would have had 24 weeks of debate—and of course we did not. Entire new parts and several stand-alone clauses were added which bore no relation to any existing provisions in the Bill. Only six days in Committee were allowed for those 95 clauses, and only a single day to debate all the new clauses on the alternative vote. There were multiple knives in the programme motion to restrict debate, and only one day for Report. I am happy to accept that we may not be perfect, but we have made tremendous steps forward.
John Mann
Is the Minister daring to come to this House and suggest that failing to put this Bill into a proper Committee, with week after week of scrutiny—I would have been happy to serve on it, and to stay overnight as well if necessary—and railroading this gerrymandered Bill through Parliament is in some way democratic? How has he got the nerve to come up with such nonsense?
Mr Harper
By having a Committee of the Whole House, we have enabled every Member to be here. I have been here for all five days of debate, and enjoyed them tremendously. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman on this particular issue. If he wants to wait, however, he will find that, much to my surprise, I agree with several of his points about the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda.
John Mann
But Members such as myself have tabled amendments, and because there has not been enough time, they have not even been scheduled for debate. The gerrymandering being attempted is not even being debated in the Committee, because of the timetabling. This collapsing coalition has put together a democratic outrage.
Mr Harper
That argument might be credible if I did not remember all the programme motions that the hon. Gentleman voted for in the last Parliament. Indeed, Labour Members opposed both the second programme motion on this Bill, which added six hours of debate, and the original programme motion, which ensured that we had more debate last week than we otherwise would have done. When we gave the Committee more time—to take account of the statement on the strategic defence and security review and the, quite rightly, lengthy statement on the comprehensive spending review—Labour Members voted against extra compensatory time. Labour never gave such compensation when we debated important provisions.
John Mann
I thank the Minister for generously giving way again in the limited time available today. Does he not remember criminal justice Bills of the past, for example, when some of us sat in Committee every Tuesday and Thursday for three months going through them clause by clause, word by word? In the case of the Legal Services Act 2007, amendments were tabled by Members in all parts of the Committee week after week, to improve the Bill. The then Government were sensible enough to listen to their Back Benchers in detail in Committee.
Mr Harper
I can see why my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) was confused and tried to intervene on the hon. Gentleman. That was a very lengthy intervention, almost worthy of a speech.
We have made considerable provision for debate, and when the Government provide extra time, the Committee needs to debate a Bill sensibly. To be fair, most Members have done so, but I cannot help but observe that most of the extra time that we added for the past couple of days was almost entirely used up by the hon. Member for Rhondda. Rather than comment, I will let Members judge for themselves whether he used that time well.
Angela Smith
However much time the Government give the Bill on the Floor of the House, it will not make up for the lack of the pre-legislative scrutiny that it should have had.
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) dealt with that point very well in his intervention. As my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House has said, if there was pre-legislative scrutiny of everything at the beginning of a new Parliament, with a new Government having been elected, there would be a huge gap in the programme. He has made it clear that taking the Government’s programme as a whole, we will almost certainly end up allowing more scrutiny of draft Bills than any previous Government.
Angela Smith
With respect, is not a Bill relating to constitutional reform of such significance that the Government should have waited and gone through a pre-legislative scrutiny process before bringing it to the House?
Mr Harper
All that I can say is that we can examine the comparative records. In the last Session under the Labour Government only four Bills had pre-legislative scrutiny. We will end up with twice as many, so our overall record will bear comparison.
I am not sure whether he meant it, but the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) accused us of putting the horse before the cart and proceeding at a gallop. I represent a rural area, so I think I have got this right: putting the horse before the cart seems to be the right thing to do, as does proceeding at a gallop. I do not see any problem with that.
Mr Harper
I will not, but I will of course correctly assign the comment to the hon. Member for Rhondda. It perhaps demonstrates that he needs to learn a little more about horses and carts before he makes such allusions.
The hon. Member for Rhondda mentioned combined elections and said that the Government had chosen the date of other elections for the referendum. I cannot help but observe that in both 2001 and 2005 the previous Government specifically chose to have general elections on dates when county council elections were already planned. They knew that in advance, and the elections were combined. They ran perfectly well and passed off without incident. I do not have any complaint about that, but for the Opposition to complain about our choosing to have a referendum on a date when there are other elections seems a bit rich.
Chris Bryant
I think I am right in saying that the hon. Gentleman has just said that the 2001 general election was held on the same day as the local elections. It was not: it was held in June, which was when I was first elected. That is yet another reason for him to resign.
Mr Harper
No, not at all, because the local elections were also held in June, because of the foot and mouth outbreak. Both sets of elections were moved, and they were on the same day, so it is the hon. Gentleman who should resign. I remember that very well, because my constituency was badly hit by the foot and mouth outbreak and the shambolic way in which it was handled by the Labour Government. That was one good reason why I was elected in 2005, and re-elected this year.
Kevin Brennan
On pre-legislative scrutiny, if we are going back to 2001, I will mention that the first Bill that I served on in that Parliament, the Adoption and Children Bill, went through a Special Standing Committee procedure. We had some evidence sessions before the Bill was considered in Committee. It would have been perfectly possible for that to happen with this Bill. Would not the opportunity to take evidence for a few days before Committee stage started—rightly, on the Floor of the House—have made the Bill stronger, and its passage through Parliament better informed?
Mr Harper
I have said both today and on earlier days that notwithstanding the short time available to it, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee did a sterling job of taking evidence and producing a comprehensive report on the Bill. We have examined what it said with great care, even though we do not necessarily agree with it.
The other point that I would make on that subject is that at business questions last week, when some hon. Members were complaining about the amount of time available, an Opposition Member who speaks for her party from the Front Bench complained that we were allowing too much time. She said that it was not very helpful that the House was sitting late, and asked what we were going to do to make the hours of the House more “predictable and family-friendly”. I can only observe that there is a balance to be struck. Some Members think we should sit all night, but when we allow more time, others criticise us for making the House less family-friendly. Opposition Front Benchers cannot have it both ways.
I wish to pick up some of the points that the hon. Member for Rhondda made. He alluded to what I said about combining elections in Northern Ireland, and said that there was not currently any provision to do so. There is provision to combine local elections in Northern Ireland with UK parliamentary elections, and that already takes place, but there is no power in existing legislation to combine Northern Ireland Assembly elections with Northern Ireland local elections. If we did not have such provision in the Bill, they could not be combined and would have to be run separately.
The hon. Gentleman’s amendments seeking to remove the provision for combining elections would not prevent elections from happening on the same day. They would just make it impossible to combine them. They would have to be run completely separately, which would incur extra cost and more complexity. Returning officers and counting officers could not ensure that the arrangements for those elections were brought together to work more sensibly. Those proposals would therefore not take us any further forward. We would still have the elections, but there would be more cost and complexity. He does us no favours by suggesting that.
I made a point about poll cards earlier, but I shall repeat it, because it came up in the contributions of the hon. Gentleman and a number of other hon. Members. Poll cards will confirm the voting arrangements that will apply to particular electors. When they get their cards, electors will know whether they have a postal vote in place, which of the elections they are entitled to vote in, and therefore whether they need to apply for a postal vote for any of the elections. The fact that poll cards will have that information on them will be very helpful.
The hon. Member for Rhondda also mentioned some of the other elections that we propose to combine. I want to correct a small error. I think that I said that five mayoral elections were planned for next year, but the figure is four. I shall list the places for the hon. Gentleman’s benefit: Bedford, Middlesbrough, Mansfield and Torbay. It is possible that further mayoral elections or by-elections might take place next year, and our combination provisions would cover them.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned local government referendums. I understand that several petitions have been registered with local authorities about referendums for directly elected mayors. We think that at least some local referendums are likely to take place. If they are held on the same day, we and the administrators believe that it would be sensible to combine them.
I have already spoken about amendment (a) to new clause 20 to limit the combination of elections. The amendment would not stop the elections happening; it would simply mean that administrators could not take them together. That does not help. I understand the views of hon. Members who do not agree with combination, but we had a lengthy debate of around five and quarter hours about that on the first day of our Committee proceedings. We had the argument and the Committee made a decision. If we accept that the elections will take place on 5 May, the Government amendments intend to ensure that they work sensibly, instead of rerunning the debate about whether they should be held on the same day.
Chris Bryant
I understand the thrust of the Parliamentary Secretary’s remarks, but I am not sure that he is right. New schedule 2 refers to England, and although we discussed other elections in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, we did not have a debate about whether English local elections should be held on the same day as the referendum.
Mr Harper
No, but we had a debate about whether the referendum should take place next May. If it does, it will be on the same day as the local authority elections. The Committee made a decision about the day on which it wanted the elections to take place—5 May.
Amendment (c) to new schedule 2 deals with the colour of the ballot paper. The current wording of new schedule 2 matches the version that is used in existing combination legislation, which has worked well for several years. The first sub-paragraph of amendment (c) is unnecessary. We do not believe that it is appropriate to give the chief counting officer first choice of colour for the ballot paper for the referendum, partly because of showing respect to the other polls on that day. I cannot remember who raised the point, but there may well be custom and practice about the colour of ballot papers for particular elections in different parts of the UK. We think it appropriate to allow returning officers to continue with their usual custom and practice and to choose a different colour for the ballot paper for the referendum to make it easy for voters to tell the papers apart.
Much to my surprise, amendment (d) is one of two topics on which I agree with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). The flexibility that we have allowed on combining poll cards would allow counting officers to make local decisions, which reflect conditions on the ground. There may be particular reasons for that. Returning officers have adduced logistical reasons why printers, distributors and sometimes other administrators cannot combine poll cards. It is not sensible to legislate for something that cannot be delivered on the ground. Our proposals are more sensible and leave the decisions in the hands of officials who can respond to local conditions.
On ballot boxes, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), who is in his place, made the point well that we want to allow flexibility for administrators to do what makes sense. In some places, where there is only a small polling station, multiple ballot boxes might constitute overkill. Even if there are separate ballot boxes, one cannot guarantee that papers from the election or the referendum do not go into the other ballot box. One must therefore still take all the papers out, separate and verify them. Again, it is much more sensible to leave that decision to administrators, who can take account of local circumstances.
Chris Bryant
I seek clarification from the Parliamentary Secretary. He said that the three territorial authorities had laid their statutory instruments, but there is nothing in the Vote Office yet. The Scottish statutory instrument is available online, but not in the Vote Office. I hope that he will check the facts for us later.
Kevin Brennan
Do I take it from the Parliamentary Secretary’s comments about attending the count on a Monday that he expects no member of the Government to attend any of the counts for the AV referendum?
Mr Harper
I did not say that. I assume that most Members will have duties in the House and in other places. If they do not, of course they can attend the counts. However, I foresee that most Members of Parliament will have important matters to tackle here, instead of attending counts in local authority areas or in Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly or Welsh Assembly constituencies.
Chris Bryant
The Minister may be right that somebody has given the statutory instruments to the Table Office, but they are not available in the Vote Office. It would be for the convenience of the Committee if the Government provided copies to the Vote Office today, so that hon. Members can read them before we finish the amendments.
Mr Harper
I said that the Government would table the territorial orders today, because it is in relation to those orders—now that we have them and they are available—that we will be able to table amendments after the Committee stage finishes, for discussion on Report. The new clause and the Government new schedules that we have been debating today, and on which I will ask hon. Members to vote, refer to the law as it currently is, prior to the tabling of the territorial orders. Those orders are not needed for Members to deliberate today; they are needed for Members to table amendments for debate on Report, and they will be available to Members in good time for those debates.
Chris Bryant
I am just asking a simple thing, which is that the Minister should help the Committee. He says that all the statutory instruments have been tabled, but although the Scottish one is available online, the Welsh and the Northern Ireland ones are not. Would it not be simpler if he provided a few copies to the Vote Office? What possible difficulty can that give him?
Mr Harper
As with his lengthy speech, the hon. Gentleman is just going around creating confusion where there is none. The territorial orders that we have laid today—and we have laid them today—will be available for Members in good time for the debate on Report. The debate that we are having today is about new clause 20 and the Government new schedules, which, as he well knows, relate to the law as it currently is, prior to the tabling of the territorial orders, so he is creating a problem where none exists.
Mark Durkan
The Minister referred to the fact that the provisions on postal votes in Northern Ireland, as provided for in the Government’s new schedules, are not the same as those provided for elsewhere. Given that he has spent a lot of time dealing with the various Opposition amendments, will he now address that issue? The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said that there could be further amendments from the Government. Will the Minister also address that issue, and tell us whether we are awaiting further amendments from the Government on postal voting in Northern Ireland?
Mr Harper
This is not a secret: I set out what we were going to do in the letter that I sent to all hon. Members who took part in the debate on Second Reading, and to the Opposition and the leaders of each party represented in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. What we are going to do is complex, but simultaneously straightforward, which is to have tabled the combination amendments today—that is, the new clause and the Government new schedules, based on existing legislation, which we are debating. The territorial orders updating the legislation have been laid today in the Table Office. When the Committee concludes today, the Government will, as I said in my letter, table amendments that we can debate on Report—if they are selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means—that will be based on the new legislation. The territorial orders that have been laid today will be available in good time for Members to decide whether they want to table any amendments for discussion on Report, because they will be available for Members to see tomorrow. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.
I have set out, at some length, our response to the amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Rhondda. As I said at the beginning of this debate, I would urge hon. Members to support our new clause and our new schedules, and to oppose the hon. Gentleman’s amendments.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Chris Bryant
On a point of order, Mr Streeter. As there was some discussion before that last set of votes about the statutory instruments to be laid by the Welsh Office, the Northern Ireland Office and the Scotland Office—
Chris Bryant
I apologise and am very grateful to the Whip for that.
These statutory instruments are now available in the Vote Office and I note that the Scottish one is 205 pages long. There are two Northern Ireland instruments, not just one as was stated earlier. One is 59 pages long and the other is somewhat shorter; the Welsh one is quite short too. Would it not be extraordinary if these were not to be debated properly before Report?
The Temporary Chair (Mr Gary Streeter)
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am sure that his comments have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench and the House is grateful to him for his assistance.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Streeter. I have participated in many of the debates on this Bill, but it has been drawn to my attention that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) suggested that I had earlier today requested that there be fewer hours spent scrutinising this Bill. What I specifically said was that there should be fewer hours after 10 pm spent scrutinising this Bill, and we would have been able to achieve that had he and his colleagues acceded to the Opposition request for an additional day to debate it.
The Temporary Chair
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. That is not a point of order for the Chair, but I am sure that she is pleased to have put the record straight.
New Clause 7
Variation in limit of number of holders of Ministerial offices
‘(1) The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 is amended as follows.
(2) For section 2(1) substitute—
“(1) The number of holders of offices specified in Schedule 2 to this Act (in this section referred to as Ministerial offices) entitled to sit and vote in the House of Commons at any one time, whether paid or unpaid, must not exceed 95 if the number of constituencies in the United Kingdom is 650.”.
(3) After section 2(1) insert—
“(1A) If the number of constituencies in the United Kingdom decreases below 650, the limit on the number of holders of Ministerial offices entitled to sit and vote in the House of Commons referred to in section 2(1) must be decreased by at least a proportionate amount.”.
(4) In subsection (2), after “subsection (1)”, insert “or subsection (1A)”.’.—(Mr Charles Walker.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 7 would amend the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which currently sets the maximum number of Ministers allowed in this place at 95. As you know, Mr Streeter, part of this Bill, if passed, will bring about a reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600. My new clause is very modest in its scope. All I am seeking to do is to amend the 1975 Act to ensure that the ceiling for the number of Ministers is pushed down from 95 to 87, which directly reflects the percentage reduction in the number of Members of Parliament.
My new clause is very moderate. Many colleagues urged me to go further and to make a real assault on the patronage of the Executive, but I thought that that would be unreasonable and unreasonably ambitious. There might be voices of self-interest, largely residing on the Front Bench, who argue that we have the right amount of Ministers. They might even argue that we need more Ministers. I hope that I do not hear those arguments tonight.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Might there not be even more Back Benchers interested in increasing the number from 95 to about 195?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman makes his usual sparky intervention.
Rafts of leading academics and political commentators have recognised for a long time that there are far too many Ministers in this place. Sir John Major, the former Prime Minister, has argued that we could easily do as well with a reduction of 25% to 30%. Lord Turnbull, the former Cabinet Secretary, told the Select Committee on Public Administration earlier this year that the number of Ministers could be cut by 50%. Professor Anthony King has argued the same, as has Lord Norton of Louth.
Of course, those academics and political commentators are in good company. Our own Deputy Prime Minister argued in January that the number of Ministers should be reduced.
Fiona Mactaggart
Has the hon. Gentleman spoken more recently to the Deputy Prime Minister, because it is my impression that he is not likely to say today the things he said in January?
Mr Walker
The Deputy Prime Minister is a man of great integrity. I recognise that this is his Bill, and once he has heard the force of my argument he will rush here and demand a rethink from his Front Benchers.
Speaking at the Institute for Government in January, the Deputy Prime Minister called for the House of Commons to be reduced to 500 and for the number of Ministers across both Houses to be cut to 73. The Government’s demands are much more moderate. They are talking about reducing the size of the House to 600, but if we reduce it to 600, following the Deputy Prime Minister’s logic, we should reduce the number of Ministers by 15. That would tally with his mathematics, but, as I said, my new clause is modest. I am not calling for a reduction in the number of Ministers by 15. I know that many Members are demanding that I do that, but I shall not hear it. I am simply demanding a reduction in the number of Ministers by eight.
Many people here have argued privately in the corridors that there is no link between the size of the House of Commons and the number of Ministers. That is total nonsense. We know that as far back as the Bill of Rights of 1689 this House expressed concerns about the Crown having a presence here in the form of Ministers. The 1701 Act of Settlement tried extremely hard to remove Ministers from this place, because the politicians of that time wondered how one could serve the Crown as well as one’s constituents. Unfortunately, that never saw the light of day because the Executive got their way in 1706. As recently as 1926, if someone became a Minister of the Crown, he was required, in between general election periods, to resign his seat so that his constituents could decide whether their Member of Parliament could serve two masters—the interests of the constituents and the interests of the Crown.
That is where I am coming from. I am arguing for a modest reduction in the number of Ministers. We have had enormous ministerial inflation since 1983. Margaret Thatcher—we all remember her, that great lady—had 81 Ministers to run this country in 1983. We now require 95. Is the world so much more complex? I say to those who argue that it is that since 1983 we have privatised a large number of previously Government-owned industries and we have allowed Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have their own devolved Assemblies. The number of Ministers has still risen inexorably.
I do not want to try your patience, Mr Streeter, by straying off new clause 7 and talking about inflation in the number of Parliamentary Private Secretaries, but we are now seeing 50 PPSs adding to an already burgeoning payroll. Although these people are not even paid, they are called the payroll vote. As far back as the 1960s, one could be a PPS and vote against the Government without danger of losing that role, but that is not the case today. The civil service code of conduct says that a PPS is required always to support their Government.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I am mystified as to what the role of a PPS has to do with the civil service code.
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to correct me. It is the ministerial code, which is similar to the civil service code.
Those on the Front Bench might well argue that they have made progress in reducing the cost of the ministerial payroll. They will argue—it is a bit of a red herring—that on taking the seals of office, Ministers took a 5% pay cut. In reality, they did not take a pay cut, because they went from being in opposition to being in government and took a 25% to 50% pay rise. It just was not as large a pay rise as it could have been.
The savings to the ministerial payroll are about £500,000, not an insignificant sum. Lord Turnbull said to the Public Administration Committee that the average cost of maintaining a Minister, with private offices, cars and private secretaries, is £500,000 per Minister. By reducing the ministerial payroll by eight in 2015, we will save the taxpayer a further £4 million. While we are at it, we might like to consider the 10 unpaid Ministers we have across the two Houses, because if we got rid of them we could save another £5 million. However, that is an argument for another time and another place.
Mr Streeter, you know better than anyone that we live in an age of austerity. Things are changing. We are dismissing senior permanent secretaries from across the civil service. We are removing chief executives of councils and their directors. We are attacking senior and middle management across the country, yet there is one group of senior management that is completely immune to these cuts and that is the ministerial corps. Yes, we are all in it together, but not quite if one is a Minister. I do not think that any good argument could be presented from those on the Front Bench for not reducing the ministerial head count.
I am an enormous fan of the coalition and the Prime Minister, and I think that the coalition is what the country needs at this time. Both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have talked about new politics, a new way of doing things and a new optimism. New clause 7 is the litmus test for new politics, because I do not understand how we can have new politics and oppose reducing the Government’s patronage at the same time. I hope that Front Benchers can respond to that point.
To colleagues who are, perhaps, being leaned on by the Whips, I say that this is our chance to take ownership of new politics, which cannot be driven by Front Benchers and the Executive because the Executive are all about taking and retaining power and extending the tentacles of patronage even further. We as Back Benchers will take ownership of new politics tonight; we will do the heavy lifting for the Executive. By going into the Lobby and supporting new clause 7, we will be able to look our constituents in the eye when we go for reselection after the boundary review or the general election and say, “I was different.” When they challenge us with that worn cliché, “You’re just the same as the rest of them. You’re only in it for yourself,” we can say, “You are wrong. I was one of those Members of Parliament in 2010 who voted to reduce the number of Ministers.”
I have spoken for too long. In conclusion, new clause 7 is the very essence of new politics. The House and my colleagues have the chance to do the right thing tonight and I hope that they take that chance, because they will be respected for it if they do.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I wish to speak in support of new clause 7, which was so ably introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), and to comment on the related issues of the number of MPs and the number of Ministers with which it deals. Paragraph 24 of the coalition programme for government, the contents of which we are, in part, debating today, starts with the words:
“The Government believes that our political system is broken. We urgently need fundamental political reform”.
I totally dissociate myself from that shameful statement. If it were true, all the political leaders of recent years ought to resign their seats because they would be responsible. Our “political system is broken” it says. That was the slogan of Oswald Mosley and the British fascists when I was a boy. Mosley spent the war in prison and the political system he despised and described as broken triumphed at home and abroad. Our political system is not broken. We have had some nincompoop Front Benchers, some expense-fiddling Back Benchers and even some who managed to qualify under both categories, but our political system is basically sound and, in parliamentary terms, not very different from what it was in 1945, 1918 and 1815.
It is the duty of an incoming Government in a democratic country to work within the rules and conventions of its political system, not to change those rules and conventions to fit their temporary party political convenience—that is a privilege usually reserved for banana republics. That is why I am opposed to all the so-called constitutional changes proposed in the coalition programme. The Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday—appropriately on “Desert Island Discs”—that when he met the leader of the Conservative party after the election, they agreed together that in the general election both their parties had lost. We should try to reverse that decision of the electorate not by changing the rules of the game but by raising the standard of government. We do not have too many MPs: we have too many Ministers and too many placemen, to use Sir Robert Walpole’s phrase to describe the proliferation of what Disraeli later described as the Tadpoles and Tapers of politics, who are now being proliferated to an astonishing degree.
In 1900, when we were the richest and most powerful nation in the world, there were nine Parliamentary Private Secretaries. By 2000, the number had gone up to 47 and it is rising daily.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman said that in 1900 the UK was the richest nation in the world. Today, in The Scotsman, I read that among the top 15 most prosperous nations, the UK finds itself in the unlucky 13th place, behind Norway at No. 1 and noticeably behind Ireland and Iceland, respectively at 11th and 12th. That is just a point of information.
Sir Peter Tapsell
It is very interesting—even if incomprehensible to me. I make the point in passing that Scotland has gained even more than Britain from the combination of our two countries since the Act of Union.
Mr MacNeil
Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the Irish Republic would be better off as part of the UK, or has the Irish Republic prospered and done far better by leaving the UK?
Sir Peter Tapsell
Curiously enough, I shall come to the question of the Irish Republic a little later in my remarks, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.
Although by 2000 the total number of MPs involved in Government had already gone up from 42 in 1900 to 129, the number of Cabinet Ministers has not greatly increased. It is the number of loyal, but little known and easily sackable bag carriers that has ballooned. At the election, we in the Conservative party were pledged to make Government more answerable to Parliament. How is that to be achieved by maintaining the number of Ministers and increasing the number of PPSs, yet at the same time reducing the number of MPs? At this rate, genuine Government Back Benchers will become a threatened species. There will be no more Pitts attacking Walpole, no more Disraelis attacking Peel and no young Macmillans attacking Chamberlain, yet that is part of the lifeblood of our parliamentary story.
On what grounds is it claimed, historically, statistically or in terms of accommodation, that we have too many MPs? Germany, Australia and the United States, with their federal structures, have far more elected representatives, at various levels of their constitution, than we have. Over the past two centuries, our population has increased from about 16 million in 1800 to about 62 million today. We now have 650 MPs. The proposal is to reduce the number to 600. In 1801, shortly before Trafalgar, there were 658 MPs. In 1885, in the heyday of Liberalism, there were 670 MPs. In the 1918 general election, 707 MPs were elected to the House, before the southern Irish were hived off in 1922—the year in which the Back Benchers of the Tory party reasserted themselves and got rid of Lloyd George.
Universal suffrage was not fully achieved until 1929, but in the two previous centuries the voteless masses were never out of the minds of wise MPs and Ministers. In 1801, the number of people, as distinct from voters, in each constituency averaged 24,000—although it varied a good deal from constituency to constituency. Today, the number is 95,000 and the majority are electors. If we reduce the number of MPs to 600, as is proposed, that average population figure will become 103,000, quadrupled from the 25,000 of 1800 when they had more MPs than we have today. Also, the demands of a constituency on its Member of Parliament have enormously increased in recent years. In my first Parliament, I shared one secretary with two other young and active MPs; now I have three secretaries working for me alone.
Coalition Ministers, in their programme document, claim to hold our political system in contempt, but the strange fact is that the part of the system that undoubtedly works best is that in which the Government are least involved. The best aspect of modern politics is the close personal relationship between MPs and their constituents. Its closeness and extent is unique. Even in Switzerland, the cantonal MP is not seen as being so close and available as most MPs of all parties are seen to be by their constituents in Britain.
While the media and many members of the public often express contempt for our leading political figures—but not, of course, for the Leader of the House—at grass-roots level, whatever the politics of their MP, people are more likely to say, “My own MP does a good job in the constituency, and when I am in trouble, I know that he will do his best to help me.” That is the strongest of all the present bulwarks of our democratic parliamentary system.
At a time of economic failure, disgruntled police, fearful public servants, a neglected army and hostile trade unions, which in many countries would be regarded as a dangerous quintet, why tamper with that bulwark? When there are so many more pressing issues to be solved, why set many MPs, even of the same party—or particularly of the same party—at the political throats of their neighbours, as rumours of boundary changes begin to abound? My local press has already speculatively redrawn the six Lincolnshire constituencies and abolished one of them, to general dismay and the discouragement of activists of all parties. Why muddy the political waters with the inevitable charges of gerrymandering, which are certain to be thrown about?
Very wisely, in the United States, changes to the actual constitution occur only very rarely, after years of discussion, and they require a two-thirds majority of both Houses of Congress and the approval of the Supreme Court. In this debate on new clause 7, I have spoken about only two aspects of the so-called constitutional reforms, but in my view, the wide range of constitutional and electoral changes proposed by the coalition Government, taken as a whole, and introduced so early in the life of a Parliament full of new Members, constitute an attempt at a peaceful, political coup d’état, with the sole object of securing the position of Ministers. They have no mandate for the Bill from the country. I therefore urge this Committee to accept new clause 7, and urge the House in due course to reject the whole Bill on Third Reading.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
I had not intended to speak in the debate, although I support the proposal in the new clause. I am quite certain that our most important role in this place is that of representing our constituents, and I agree with the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) that that relationship between the Member and our electors is the most special thing about my job. That is what most Members of Parliament think.
The problem is that that relationship is not sufficiently rewarded by the structures of this place, and in some ways the new clause goes to that issue. It challenges a reward system which says that success is achieved only by being a Minister. I have history here, because I am one of the very few people who, when they were a Minister, asked the Prime Minister to stop making me a Minister because I had had enough. I wanted to jump off that gravy train, for a number of reasons. One of them was that I believed that my responsibilities as a Minister interfered with the relationship that I had with the people of Slough whom I have the privilege to represent.
I have been complaining about late-night debates on the Bill and I did not plan to intervene until the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle spoke. We need to listen carefully to what he said, because his speech was not just about the new clause. It was not just about the number of Ministers. It was an analysis that showed that the Bill is looking down the wrong end of the telescope. The Bill protects the interests of those in government—in power—at the expense of those who put us there. It is not sufficiently focused on the electorate of Britain, on the masses whom we have the privilege to represent, and it is too focused on those who have scooped up the power in what he calls a coup d’état.
In a way, the hon. Gentleman is entirely right. I do not quibble with the fact that the result of the election required a coalition to be created. I am also of the view that the coalition had to be created between the largest party and a partner. But I quibble with the kind of constitutional change that the Bill seeks to bring about, not prefigured properly in any party’s manifesto, being rammed through the House of Commons without proper consideration.
That speaks to us about the consequences of not having a written constitution. There are some merits in not having a written constitution. It can create some flexibility and some opportunities to be imaginative and to solve problems as they arise, but it has risks, and today we are in the middle of one of the biggest risks. Without a written constitution, people can take liberties with the constitution. That is happening right now. Liberties are being taken, and those taking the liberties are those in government, who see the reward of elections—the highest thing that they can achieve—as Government office, not representing the masses.
Those of us who think that representing the people of Britain is our highest achievement should say that we will support the new clause and that we will not accept a situation in which a third of those on the Government Benches are on the payroll. That is not acceptable. It is not satisfactory and it creates huge cynicism among the electorate of Britain. I cannot blame them for thinking that politicians are rogues. Most of us in this place know that most are not, but when the system means that people cannot say what hon. Members and I know they think because they are on the Government Benches and they have to just suck it up, that makes people think that politics has no authenticity and that it is dishonest. That is damaging to democracy.
Chris Bryant
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her splendid speech. I had not realised that she was going to end so swiftly.
We have had excellent contributions. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said that he lacked ambition. That is clear, I suppose. That has been underlined with three lines from the Whips, but I praise the motion that he tabled. It puts into a new clause the question that I asked the Deputy Prime Minister some few months ago: if the Government plan to cut the number of seats in the House of Commons and do not plan to cut the number of Ministers, surely that will increase the influence of the Government—the Executive—over Parliament. I wholeheartedly support the argument that the hon. Member for Broxbourne made this evening.
Mr MacNeil
May I charitably suggest that although the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) might lack personal ambition, he certainly does not lack ambition for the House and its wider membership, which will have been noted on both sides of the House?
Chris Bryant
Of course; I did not mean to be ungenerous to the hon. Member for Broxbourne, as I think he well knows. I was praising his ambition, which need not be for the greasy pole—it might be for other things in life.
The right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell)—
Chris Bryant
Well, the hon. Gentleman should be. He carries himself as if he were right honourable—if not most reverend as well.
Chris Bryant
Yes, he delivered his remarks with a magisterial largesse—[Interruption.] No, I was not going to say laissez faire.
The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle made some extremely good points, and I hope that many Members will reject the Bill on Third Reading for precisely the reasons he advanced. One of the arguments I have tried to make throughout is that I fully understand why many hon. Members feel that, following the expenses saga in particular, we need to be very humble about the authority of the House and individual Members. However, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We should be proud of our representative democracy and the system we have. It does not work perfectly. There are things that have to be improved. As in the church, there will always be things that are semper reformanda. However, we should not in the process suddenly start to say that the whole of the political system is corrupt, wrong and rotten, and that therefore we have to start all over again.
I differ from the hon. Gentleman on one point. He said that the system is not much different from that in 1945, 1918 and 1850—
Chris Bryant
Well, my point remains. Neither in 1815 nor in 1850 were miners able to vote, because they did not qualify under the franchise. In 1885, they were allowed to, but women were not. One can make significant changes to the system, although I think the hon. Gentleman holds a different view from me about reform of the House of Lords. That is where I agree more with the Government Front-Bench team. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had any particular tadpoles or nincompoops in mind—I can see some images flitting across his mind now, which suggests he had some specific people in mind.
The hon. Member for Broxbourne referred directly to the argument that the Deputy Prime Minister made in January in favour of cutting the House of Commons to 500 Members and the number of Ministers to 73, but of course that is not at all the proposal before us. The right hon. Gentleman has adopted neither measure. It might be that having picked one tune on “Desert Island Discs” on Sunday, he changes his tune entirely when it is replayed on Thursday. That is clearly the situation we have at the moment.
Our system has changed over the generations because it has not been considered right and proper that Ministers thought of their salary or pension as just a tiny part of their remuneration for being in hock to the Crown and that all the other monopolies and benefits accruing by virtue of how they operated their ministerial office brought in far more money. It was Edmund Burke who, in 1782, first introduced changes that meant that Ministers of the Crown had to rely on the properly arrived at financial provisions, rather than on the previous system which was completely and utterly corrupt. As Macaulay said of the 18th century:
“From the noblemen who held the white staff and the great seal, down to the humblest tidewaiter and gauger, what would now be called gross corruption was practiced without disguise and without reproach.”
Many in previous generations exercised their ministerial functions solely on the basis of financial corruption. Ministers accumulated enormous fortunes by virtue of being Ministers. It is right and proper that we do not have that system today, and if anybody in the British political system does accumulate, by virtue of their political office, an enormous fortune, there is something going wrong—IPSA must have allocated everything that we have all claimed to just one individual Member.
There was substantial change in 1831 through the Select Committee on the Reduction of Salaries. It suggested a completely different structure, which ended up with William Pitt the Younger, when he was First Lord of the Treasury, earning just £5,000 by virtue of that post, although he had other posts that earned him some £4,300. Today, that would be a considerable amount of money for ministerial office, but at the time MPs were not paid at all.
Today’s system relies on two pieces of legislation from 1975, the Ministerial and other Salaries Act, and the House of Commons Disqualification Act, to which the new clause in the name of the hon. Member for Broxbourne refers. Both specify that the number of Ministers shall be 95. The Ministerial and other Salaries Act also lays out how many Cabinet Ministers, Ministers of State, Whips and so on there can be, and it is my simple contention that if one wants to limit the number of Members and ensure that the proper legislative scrutiny function of this House is performed, one has to cut the number of Ministers.
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
When the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) spoke to his new clause, he made the very good point that, at a time when we are talking about reducing not the number of councillors throughout the UK, but the administrative costs, the chief executives, the directors and so on, it is incumbent on us to talk about changing the Executive and reducing the Executive’s power.
Chris Bryant
That is right. If we really are to have new politics—that rather amorphous term to which the coalition agreement alludes—it must accept something that we the Opposition were too reluctant to accept when we sat on the Government Benches: that Parliament, when it is free to do its job, does its job better than when it is constrained.
The constraints are multiplying. The number of parliamentary secretaries is not quite growing daily, as the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle suggested. He made it sound as if they were breeding and reproducing. The number is not growing daily. However, it is certainly true—
Chris Bryant
Ah! Parliamentary Private Secretaries. Indeed, I was going to come to the point about PPSs, because the hon. Member for Broxbourne was absolutely right to say that they are included in the ministerial code of conduct. It is a bit odd that a list of PPSs is still not available to the public. If one goes to the Cabinet Office website, one finds that the most recent list refers to July 2009. There is a list on conservativehome.com, which is a website that Government Members might consult sometimes, detailing 22 Parliamentary Private Secretaries, but as I understand it there are considerably more than that. The Government should be straight with the House and tell us precisely how many people are really on the payroll. By payroll, I do not mean that PPSs are in receipt of moneys.
The ministerial code of conduct, which incidentally every PPS should have been provided with and signed, although I suspect that most have not, makes it absolutely clear:
“Parliamentary Private Secretaries are expected to support the Government in important Divisions in the House. No Parliamentary Private Secretary who votes against the Government can retain his or her position.”
I say again that this House does its job as a reviewing, revising and legislative body when it is freest from the shackles of patronage, but with the numbers of Ministers and PPSs having grown, there is already an unnecessary constraint on the real power of this House to do its job.
We have talked about what happens on the Government Benches, but what also happens is that the Opposition feel that they have to match the ministerial team—and of course, the PPS team—man for man and woman for woman, so we end up not with 95 Ministers but 190. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) is saying from a sedentary position that Labour did the same—yes, and I have already said that we were too slow to accept these points. However, there is a big difference. He is supporting a Bill to remove 50 Members of Parliament while keeping the number of the Ministers the same, which means that Ministers will form a larger percentage of the House.
When one includes Ministers and PPSs on the Government side and their shadows on the Opposition side, one ends up with a large number of people who are not entirely free to speak their mind because they are bound by collective responsibility. There are many things to be said in favour of collective responsibility: nobody wants to be run by a shower who are completely and utterly unable to organise themselves and exercise some discipline. However, we also need a significant number of people on the Back Benches who are able to deliver their verdict on legislation and to vote at all times entirely with their conscience.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is trying to have it both ways. He is arguing that people who are not members of the Government are a bulwark against an oppressive Executive, and I accept that. At the same time, he admits that his own Government—the previous Administration—got it wrong, and I agree. However, this is not necessarily just a numerical issue. We should cast our minds back to the Iraq war debates, when a huge Back-Bench cohort failed to hold the Executive to account on one of the most important issues of foreign policy in our country’s history since the war.
Chris Bryant
I think I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In the previous Government we were not always as alive as we might have been to the fact that this House does its job best when it is most free to be able to do so. However, the difference that he has to face is that unless he intends to agree with the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle, he is supporting a Bill that wants to cut the number of MPs from 650 to 600. That will, in effect, cut the number of Back Benchers, because it does not cut the number of Ministers. My argument is that if we are going to cut one group, we should cut the other. That is entirely in line with the new clause.
Mr Mark Field
Everybody accepts that collective responsibility is an important function, particularly in this media-savvy world in which we live, where it is important to ensure that any Government do not look like a shambles. Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that there is a distinction between collective responsibility for much of the legislation that goes through this House and this sort of Bill—a constitutional Bill that should not be subject to quite the same shackles to which he has referred?
Chris Bryant
I agree. That is why I have been trying to argue that Members such as the hon. Gentleman who have taken a long-standing interest in constitutional issues should feel free not necessarily to vote with their Front Benchers. I know that he has already exercised that right on several occasions.
Daniel Kawczynski
The hon. Gentleman says that having a large group of PPSs will make it more difficult to hold the Government to account, but some might argue that when Mr Blair was Prime Minister it was the rebellion among PPSs threatening to resign that finally forced him to go.
Chris Bryant
I know too much about that episode to want to divulge exactly what went on. The hon. Gentleman is a PPS now, is he not?
Chris Bryant
Right, but he is not yet listed on any publicly available list of PPSs. [Interruption.] Well, I am sure that the country is grateful and that people will welcome the hon. Gentleman with acclaim and instantly start putting up red and white bunting in honour of his historical associations with Poland.
My point is that the payroll vote has increased. It has increased because of the dramatic increase in the number of PPSs, which partly happened under our rule but I think is happening again at the moment. The increased payroll vote is not just because of that, though. It is also because of unpaid Ministers. I was an unpaid Minister for a while and sympathise with the Deputy Leader of the House, who is one now. We now also have a particularly interesting concept, which is a Liberal Democrat Whip who is not even an unpaid Minister but an organiser of the Liberal Democrats, but who is sort of on the payroll as part of the ministerial team. Clearly, because their job has the word “Whip” in it, they are expected to vote with the Government at all times.
In addition, a vast extent of patronage is still available to Prime Ministers. They can make Members chair an ad hoc committee or ask them to be a delegate to some conference here or there. The whole business of patronage can be profoundly dangerous to how we do our business. I have already referred to how that applies to Opposition parties.
I will be warm towards the Government briefly and say that they have made some moves to remove one element of that patronage, which we had suggested before and for which I remember fighting when Robin Cook was Leader of the House. They have done that through the election of Select Committee Chairs. That has been entirely beneficial and I support it fully. I can see at least one Committee Chair in his place, and he is a splendid chap. He might not have become Chair of that Committee if it had been a matter of patronage, or if he had become Chair by virtue of patronage, he might not have felt so free to use his voice in these debates over the past few days. He has pointed in the direction of the new politics, but we can still go much further.
Of course we must consider the financial costs of ministerial office that can be saved, although I do not want to go too far down the populist route attached to that. Sometimes it is valuable to have Ministers who are properly supported and can do their job well. When I was in the Foreign Office it had only three Ministers in the House of Commons, which made it very difficult for foreign delegations to be met by a Minister from the Foreign Office. I do not know whether that did the United Kingdom any favours. I do not wish to adopt every populist measure that is thrown in front of us, or to kick it in the net, but I do want to ensure that the House has sufficient Members with Back-Bench independence to be able to hold the Executive to account.
Many of those who have made the most significant contributions to the House over the centuries have not only never sought ministerial office but actively declined it, from Andrew Marvell, who turned down office on five or six occasions, to Plimsoll, Bradlaugh and a series of others. They made dramatic changes to the lives of many ordinary people in this country, and they did not need ministerial office to do it. They were able to do it from the Back Benches.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
I wish to speak very briefly in favour of the new clause. There is a long history in this House of Members challenging the ever-increasing power of the Executive. We heard recently from the Leader of the House, who is not in his place:
“The terms of the trade between Government and Parliament have shifted too far in the executive’s favour. That is not good for Parliament; but neither does it lead to better government.”
The Prime Minister also highlighted those concerns in February, saying:
“We’d want to reduce the power of the executive and increase the power of Parliament even if politics hadn’t fallen into disrepute.”
We also heard from the Deputy Prime Minister before the election, which he described as
“an opportunity to turn the page on decades of relentless centralisation within government.”
He argued for a dispersal of power away from the centre and a cut in the number of Ministers and Government Whips, saying:
“The rules of the game at Westminster are stacked in favour of the ruling party; parliament is rendered largely impotent to hold ministers to account.”
We have heard over the past few days and weeks very strong arguments for equalising the size of constituencies and reducing the number of MPs, but to do that without also reducing the number of Ministers would profoundly undermine the authority of Parliament. The proposal is not radical, or even a solution to the problem that so many hon. Members have identified. It would neither minimise the power of the Executive nor increase that of the legislature. It merely calls for a reduction in the size of Government in line with the planned cuts to the number of Members of Parliament. In effect, it will do no more than prevent trends from getting worse.
If the Government are truly committed to decentralisation, they can demonstrate that today by backing the new clause. I strongly urge them to do that.
Mark Durkan
I support the new clause, to which my name, along with those of so many others from different parties, is attached in the unpublished list.
When considering the new clause, the Committee should bear in mind not only the experiences of the parties that form the Government and occupy the Government Benches, but those of the rest of us who come to the Chamber and the Committees of the House and are confronted with the realities of the Government Whip system and Parliamentary Private Secretaries—part of the peculiar ecosystem here—who can represent their constituents but are at times bound not to represent their consciences. The idea that someone can represent their constituents but never their conscience is a peculiar political creation, from which the House should try to get away. It brings politics into some disrepute if we appear effectively to neuter ourselves. The straits into which PPSs are cast are unnecessary; they should be allowed more freedom than they generally exercise or are encouraged or permitted to exercise.
New clause 7 led me to that issue by way of making a general observation about the dominance of the Executive in the House. In recent years there have been attempts to reduce the Executive’s absolute control of the agenda and the timetable, and changes have been made from appointing Chairs of Select Committees to electing them. That is all to the good, but new clause 7 is the reality check. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said, it is the genuine test of whether the new politics means anything.
I have no argument with reducing the number of Members of Parliament. I did not vote for 650 the other night; I am happy if there is a reduction. However, alongside that, we need a reduction in the size and voting dominance of the Executive in the Chamber.
Of course the answer to the problem of the over-supply of Ministers in this House is not to over-supply them in another place. In the previous Parliament not only many Ministers, but Cabinet Ministers—Secretaries of State—sat in another place. I joined others in criticising that lack of accountability. For me, the answer was not to bring Ministers from the Lords into this House—the last thing I wanted was to bring Peter Mandelson back anywhere, not least to the Dispatch Box, given our experiences of the man. On that famous occasion in Hartlepool, he said that he was not a quitter but a fighter. I always believed that his theme tune should have been the Simon and Garfunkel song “The Boxer”—not for the lyrics of the verses but for the chorus, which is simply “Lie la lie” throughout.
Mark Durkan
I said, not for any of the words of the verses, but for the chorus. That alone would make a good theme tune for Peter Mandelson.
The answer was not to bring Lords Ministers into this place; the question was: why were there so many Cabinet Ministers in the Lords? The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that there are limits in statute on the number of Cabinet Ministers, but we saw how the previous Government got round that. They went to the limit for Cabinet Ministers and then had a series of ministerial high chairs put around the Cabinet table, so that lots of other Ministers had rights of attendance at Cabinet, simply to ensure that more Members of the House of Commons were in the Cabinet room than would have been there otherwise. That is the sort of lazy, sloppy, self-serving thinking that seizes parties in government. They use and abuse, and bend and flex rules and limits in ways that suit themselves, which does nothing to enhance the reputation of politics in general or this House in particular.
Mr Jenkin
I rise briefly to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) on the spirited and coherent way in which he moved his new clause. I should also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who also made a coherent and spirited defence of the new clause.
It is not my intention to speak for very long. In fact, it had not been my intention to speak at all in this debate, partly because I am losing my voice, so this speech might not continue for long. In fact, it might be cut down in its prime. However, I have been watching the Deputy Leader of the House nodding at some interesting moments during this debate, when he seemed to be endorsing the past statements of his party’s leader. I am waiting with bated breath to see how he melds the previous position of his party’s leader with the present position of the Government.
While he is preparing his remarks, I hope that he will reflect on the fact that the very office of Deputy Leader of the House is, in itself, rather a modern invention. I think that it was invented during the previous Labour Government. I do not know whether it ever existed before—I look to my hon. Friend the Father of the House—because it had never been deemed necessary for there to be a deputy to the Leader—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was the embodiment of the invention. The post reflected the desire of the Executive to create more jobs for the boys—if I may put it that way—than existed before.
There is a simple test that we need to apply to this Bill, and to new clause 7 in particular, which is: does it strengthen the House of Commons? It was axiomatic before the election, and in the aftermath of the expenses scandal, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that every party leader should speak in grand terms about the need to strengthen the accountability of Government and to strengthen the House of Commons. Can the Bill do that? It cannot, unless we reduce the number of Ministers pro rata to the reduction in the number of MPs. I should point out that my remarks are not some manic attack on the power of Government. There are plenty of ways in which Governments can appoint people to jobs in order to get things done. Indeed, I should say to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who spoke just before me, that it is possible to appoint more Members from the other place. It is also possible to appoint more special advisers—and let us face it—we have a rash of special advisers in Government these days compared with what we used to have. There are all kinds of ways both of ensuring that there are ambassadors for the Government in office and people to implement the Government’s policy and political direction, and of ensuring that the Government remain accountable to the House.
Ministers do not need to be Members of the House in order to be accountable to it. It is worth reflecting on the fact that as we have grown the number of Ministers in this place, we have left Whips and even Parliamentary Private Secretaries to speak for the Government in the other place, because Governments are so interested in filling ministerial offices with Members of Parliament, to secure their influence in this place. However, if there were more Ministers in the other place, there is no reason why they should not be invited to the Bar of the House to answer questions. That reform is long overdue. There are plenty of alternatives.
I should like to reflect on the term “the new politics” that has crept into political parlance. I am not quite as old and wise as my noble Friend Lord Heseltine, who sat for many years in this place, and who I saw opining, at the very formation of the coalition, that there was no such thing as the new politics; there was only the old politics, and politics would always be the same. That is of course true, but if the new politics is going to mean an increase in the domination of the Executive in the House of Commons, that would seem to be the antithesis of what those who coined the phrase were seeking to convey.
In fact, politics is changing. When I was first elected in 1992 there was still quite a strong element of deference in the House of Commons towards authority and the Whips. Members who were first elected in the 1950s would have served in one or both of the world wars, and virtually every Member of Parliament at that time had done national service of one sort or another. That Edwardian deference has gone from today’s politics, however, and Governments will have to accept that the House of Commons is becoming more assertive. An example can be seen in the whole expenses debacle. I refuse to call it a scandal, because what the newspapers uncovered was much less a scandal in respect of individuals and much more a scandal in terms of the system that had developed, in which the press itself had connived. The outcome of the expenses debacle sent a message to everyone that it was time for Parliament to reassert its role, and it seemed that the party leaders took that message up. What really came through in that episode was how useless Parliament had become.
What is Parliament’s job? It is to ensure that the laws of this country are fit for purpose, to stand up for the liberty of the citizen and to control the supply of money to the Government. Looking at those three tests, we can see that the House has performed miserably over the past decade. More and more legislation, particularly secondary legislation, is passed that is unfit for purpose and not scrutinised properly. The House has completely failed to control the massive growth in public expenditure that has led to the deficit crisis that we now face, and as for protecting the liberties of the individual, I am afraid I think that most of our constituents would feel that the House has been found wanting.
If we are to improve the way in which we do our job, will we be helped if we allow the Government, of whichever party, to have patronage over and to give hope to a wider and wider group of Members, and to instil into the principle of politics in this House that the be-all and end-all is ministerial office? Would that be conducive to a more accountable system? We do not have the separation of powers in our system, but we nevertheless rely on a degree of separation between the Executive and the legislature. I submit that the new clause is exactly the signal about our determination to hold the Executive to account that the House needs to send not only to the Government of the day but to the people at large. We must send this signal that we take our jobs seriously and that we are not going to be seduced, cajoled or flattered into accepting the Executive agenda more and more.
I end with this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, who moved his new clause so ably, is a member of the Public Administration Committee, which produced the report “Too Many Ministers?” in the last Parliament. I am afraid that I have to inform the Government that we have already launched a new inquiry, asking “What do Ministers do?”. That might seem a cheeky question, but at this time when there are so many Ministers, we know from the revelations in various biographies that Parliamentary Under-Secretaries have jobs and activities created for them to keep them busy.
When it comes to the Foreign Office, I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Rhondda is right to say that we need ambassadors for Britain, representing both Parliament and Government, but I simply do not believe that to be true of all Departments. Do we need more Ministers to represent the Government in this House? It was suggested to our Committee that Whips speak for the Government in the other place, so why cannot Whips speak on behalf of the Government in this place? Why do they have to remain mute and silent here, as if they had no views of their own and no speaking purpose in a House of whose being speaking is the very essence?
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware of the irony that his Committee is carrying out this inquiry, but the Government are using that fact as a reason why our hon. Friends should not vote against the Government position tonight—because it is all going to be sorted out in the future by my hon. Friend and his Committee? Can he put my hon. Friends right, and tell them that they need to be in the Aye Lobby for this new clause?
Mr Jenkin
I can put them right. As Chairman of that Committee, although I do not act as Chairman in this capacity, I will be in the Aye Lobby myself on new clause 7. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne said, it represents a very modest maintenance of the status quo. That is what this is about—checking an advance or a further incursion of the Executive into the House of Commons. It is a holding position, while my Committee completes its work.
Mr Heath
I think this has been an interesting and illuminating debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) for tabling his new clause and for the way in which he spoke to it. I am also particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), the Chairman of the Public Administration Select Committee, not only for contributing to this evening’s debate but for his Committee’s work—and that of its predecessor, which, as he rightly said, published the first report.
We have heard from a number of Members of all parties, including from the Father of the House. The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) often gets criticised—or, perhaps, slightly cheesed—for his lapidary style, but I know from my experience over many years that he is well worth listening to on many issues. Although I do not agree with everything he says—I do not think he would expect me to—I always find listening to him a useful exercise.
The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is not in his place at the moment, intervened earlier and sought to persuade the Committee that the Republic of Ireland is the epitome of prosperity, which I am not sure is an argument that holds great water. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who is also not in her place, was moved to tell us why during the last Parliament she asked to be a Minister no longer.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said repeatedly that the Government of whom he was a part were too slow to take on these issues. Too right they were! They never took on these issues one single bit; there was never the slightest attempt to reduce the size of government or to relax the grip of the Executive on Parliament. It is only since the present Government have been elected that we have been able to deal with some of these issues. He also said, in passing, that he was suspicious that Parliamentary Private Secretaries were not acquainted with the ministerial code. He is quite wrong on that; of course they are—they are given the ministerial code to sign on taking up their positions. That is as it should be. The hon. Gentleman will have to look at the websites himself.
Chris Bryant
I am sorry, but no list of Parliamentary Private Secretaries is currently available on a website or anywhere else. Unless the hon. Gentleman can provide the address of a website that features the information, it is not available.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
If my hon. Friend looks at not just individual websites for Members of Parliament but the parliamentary website, he will see that it includes the information that a Member of Parliament is a PPS. That information was added to my name within about four weeks of my appointment.
Mr Heath
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting the Committee straight on that.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) supported the new clause. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) made the important point that the oversupply of Ministers was not best addressed by their being put in the House of Lords. I entirely agree. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex expressed a contrary view, saying that he rather liked having Ministers in the House of Lords, but I am not sure that I agree with him.
Mr Charles Walker
I do not like the idea of lots of Ministers being in the House of Lords, but the fact is that there are currently eight unpaid Ministers there. If the hon. Gentleman does not want them to be there, why on earth are the Government putting them there?
Mr Heath
I will let the hon. Gentleman into a secret: I am not the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister who makes appointments. I am simply saying that I do not think we would improve the present position by putting more Ministers in the House of Lords. In the last Parliament, members of the Cabinet—Secretaries of State in charge of Departments—were in the House of Lords, and we had no way of holding them to account. That was an affront to this elected House, and I am pleased that we have put it right.
Let me explain why I cannot support the new clause, although I have a degree of sympathy with the view of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).
Mr Heath
I said that it was undesirable, and I believe that it is undesirable. I said that in the last Parliament. I called for Secretaries of State in another place to be brought before this House for questioning, because I think it is wrong for Members of the House of Commons not to have access to those who lead Departments. That remains my position, and I am not going to change it.
Philip Davies
I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman’s argument. Is he saying that the new clause means that any Secretary of State could not be in the House of Commons, and would have to be in the House of Lords? I see nothing in the new clause that would force a Secretary of State to be in the House of Lords.
Mr Heath
I am not suggesting that that would be the case. I am picking up on points made during the debate, which I think is part of the job of a Minister responding to a debate. The hon. Member for Foyle expressed the hope that a reduction in the number of Ministers in the House of Commons would not result in an increase in the number of Ministers in the House of Lords. I suggested that I agreed with his view. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex does not agree with it. So be it. That is the nature of debate.
Mr Mark Field
The Deputy Leader of the House has made it clear that he wishes to respond to the contributions made in the debate. I think that one of the most important contributions, with which I entirely concur, came from the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). She considered it highly regrettable that a Bill of such constitutional importance was being rushed through so quickly and so early in the Parliament, in a way that gave the public—certainly those who are interested in these matters—the impression that it was being introduced simply to keep in place the current arrangements introduced by the current coalition. She suggested that it was solely a result of the electoral arithmetic that obtained in May 2010, rather than having been introduced in the long-term interests of Parliament for decades and, indeed, centuries ahead.
Mr Heath
That is a Second Reading point, but it is not a point that I agree with or accept in any way. We have already had extensive debate on the timing of the Bill; I believe we have given that subject a substantial amount of debating time. The most important point is that it is necessary to make rapid progress on the Bill if we are to have in good order both the referendum and the boundary changes suggested in the Bill.
Chris Bryant
Whether or not it is germane is obviously for the Chair, not the hon. Gentleman, to decide, but I am grateful that he has given way.
I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House. He has suggested that Parliamentary Private Secretaries are listed on each of the websites—[Interruption.] Government Members, and in particular Ministers, groan, but that is perhaps because they want to see the extension of patronage rather than the extent of patronage to be known to the whole of the House. The truth of the matter is that I have looked at the websites of four Departments and there is absolutely no evidence in any of them of who the departmental PPSs are.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Heath
No, not for the moment because I have just said that I want to set out some of the reasons I have difficulties with the new clause.
One point worried me slightly, and I have to say that the hon. Member for Broxbourne and I may have an honest disagreement about it. He appeared to be advocating a complete separation of powers.
Mr Heath
But it was suggested in the speech moving the new clause. The hon. Member for Broxbourne seemed to give the clear impression that he personally would favour a separation of powers, meaning that there would not be this country’s current parliamentary democratic system where we have Ministers drawn from this elected House. Rather, he would prefer Ministers to be drawn from the ranks of those outside the House, which is much more akin to a presidential democracy. [Interruption.] I may be misrepresenting the hon. Gentleman, and if so I apologise. However, if that is his view—and it is a perfectly respectable view—it is not one that I share. [Interruption.] I see other Members nodding because it is their view, and I understand that to be the case.
My second point is that this is not simply an issue about Ministers. It is an issue about patronage and the extent of the patronage of the Prime Minister and Government of the day. That is what we need to address, rather than the narrower issue of Ministers in this House.
My next point is that there is not a simple arithmetical relationship between the number of Members of the House and the number of Ministers: to suggest that there is is to reduce the argument and to take it beyond what is reasonable. Ministerial responsibilities must reflect what the Prime Minister and Government of the day feel they need in order to do their work effectively. There is a relationship between the number of Ministers in this House and the number of others in the House whose positions are created by patronage and both the perception and the reality of the independence of this legislature. That is a perfectly proper comment to make, but there is not, I suggest, a simple arithmetical relationship.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting, therefore, that the Prime Minister of a future Labour or Conservative Government, or indeed the Prime Minister of what we have at the moment, could extend the power of patronage to have as many Ministers as they wish in order to control the political process?
Mr Heath
As I shall go on to describe, what the previous Government did when they reached the buffers of the current restrictions was simply to create all sorts of fantastical posts that were not described as “Ministers” but were, nevertheless, an extension of patronage. We know what the Labour party did when in government and I think we can do better.
Philip Davies
The Minister seems to be saying that these things should be judged on the ministerial work load, as opposed to numbers. I do not know whether this is the case for him and his constituency, but the work load of MPs has increased rapidly in recent years. The Government are proposing to reduce the number of MPs by 50, so this Bill clearly has nothing to do with work load, yet he is giving the distinct impression that this is a simple case of turkeys not wanting to vote for Christmas.
Mr Heath
Without rehearsing arguments from other parts of the Bill—we must not do that—I can say that the interesting thing is that the proposal to reduce the number of Members and equalise constituencies seeks to make some Members who represent very many fewer constituents than others have the same work load as those of us who represent larger constituencies; we comprise about a third of the House.
Mr Charles Walker
The Deputy Leader of the House questioned whether it is wise to put an arithmetical limit on the number of Ministers, but an arithmetical limit of 95 is already in place. Is he suggesting that we remove that and just have a free-for-all in this place?
Mr Heath
No, I am not. I am suggesting that a slightly more complicated relationship is involved than perhaps the simple solution suggests; I have already mentioned one of the factors, which is that this solution does not take into account the position of the House of Lords and the reform of that House in which we are engaged.
Mark Durkan
May I take up the point that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) raised about the Deputy Leader of the House’s comment that the House should not become concerned with setting an arithmetical limit and seeking an arithmetical formula? The Bill says that there should be 600 MPs and 600 only—not one more and not one less. No flexibility is to be left to the boundary commissions, to Parliament or to anyone else, and constituencies are to be formulated every five years, again on the basis of a tyranny of arithmetic, so how can the Deputy Leader of the House tell us that within this regime of the new arithmetic and the new politics there cannot be arithmetical guarantees on the fixed number of Ministers in this House?
Mr Heath
Again, the hon. Gentleman seeks to draw me back to debates that we have had on other parts of the Bill. However, I repeat that I do not think that there is a simple arithmetical relationship between the number of Ministers in the Government and the number of Members in this House, other than the view, which is my view and that of right hon. and hon. Friends, that we need to reduce the scope of Government patronage. That is something in which we are already engaged.
Daniel Kawczynski
My hon. Friend made a very important point a few moments ago about the staggering number of special advisers that the previous Labour Administration had. I believe that they even had one for timber products and for rain forests, as well as having special envoys for Cyprus and for Sri Lanka. It is slightly hypocritical of the Labour party to accuse us of patronage of this kind when there was so much in their Government.
Mr Chope
Before the Deputy Leader of the House gets carried away by what my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who is a PPS, said, will he correct the impression that he has given—that the previous Labour Government had the maximum number of Ministers, which is 95? In fact, they had only 90 at the most. It is only this Government who have gone up to the maximum number of Ministers. Will he explain why that is so?
Mr Heath
No.
Let me go on to the next point, which is the timing of what is being suggested. This is not the hoary old chestnut that used to be described by the former Member for Cambridge, Mr David Howarth, as the doctrine of unripe time—everything was always for the best possible purposes, but the time was never ripe for it to happen. I am not saying that. I am simply saying that various elements of our proposals for reform of the constitutional arrangements and for the politics of this country are moving forward in various pieces of legislation and at various times. By the end of this Parliament, they will be in place, but this is not the right time for this measure.
Let me try to make some progress. The Government are committed—as the fairer Members who have contributed to the debate have already recognised—to passing power from the Executive to Parliament. The hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Backbench Business Committee created by this Government, will, I hope, recognise that that is the case—
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We cannot have two people on their feet at the same time. The Deputy Leader of the House should give way to Mr Walker.
Mr Heath
I apologise; I thought that the hon. Gentleman was. I apologise to him and to the House. I hope that it will not prove to be a resigning matter that I mistook him for a member of the Backbench Business Committee. Knowing him to be a fair-minded man I know that he will attest to the fact that this House has already moved the control of much more parliamentary time to Back-Bench Members through the Committee. We have also seen the election of Select Committee Members and Chairs, to which we have already drawn attention in this debate.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also become the first Prime Minister in history to give up the power to call a general election at the time of his choosing. I think it is clear that the Government are not looking to extend their own influence, but believe on principle that power should be dispersed. Indeed, we will bring forward legislation very soon to disperse more power to local communities and local authorities, enabling them to do their job more effectively.
I have difficulty in accepting that there is a need to put this new clause into this Bill at this time. It is now October of 2010—[Hon. Members: “Well done!”] It is good to know that Opposition Members are engaged in serious constitutional debate. There are four and a half years until the provisions of this Bill will take effect—[Hon. Members: “No.”] There are four and a half years until the provisions of the Bill on the boundary reviews and the reduction in the size of this House take effect. It does not result in an immediate change to the size of this House. We are legislating at speed to allow sufficient time for boundary reviews to be conducted nationally on the basis of a smaller House, but when we have time to reflect, we should use that time.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
Surely new clause 7 would also come into effect in four and a half years, at exactly the same time as the other aspects that the Minister has mentioned.
Mr Heath
Yes, it would, but my point is that new clause 7 does not perfectly encapsulate the purpose that the hon. Gentleman, the Government and I might share of making government fit for purpose in that new Parliament. Given that we do not have to pass this new clause as part of the Bill, it seems sensible to take our time, listen to representations and people’s views, and see whether we can come up with something better.
We have heard very clearly that the issue at stake is the size of the Government’s payroll vote. The proposition we have heard is that the Bill will give the Executive undue numerical dominance in the House and that we must therefore legislate now to reduce the number of Ministers here. It is a numerical fact that if the Bill becomes law, and unless we legislate to the contrary at some stage, the Government elected in 2015 will be entitled to make Ministers out of a higher proportion of the Members of the House. They will not be compelled to do so, but they will be entitled to, and recent Governments have tended to appoint as many Ministers as they can, or very close to that number. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I have acknowledged before that this issue deserves consideration, and it would not take a great detective to find the number of occasions on which I have said precisely that. On the face of it, it is not desirable that the payroll vote should be expanded as a proportion of the House’s membership. We have said that we will consider how to address this issue and we will do so.
We are told that Governments legislate too much, and the new clause concerns an issue that might be better resolved without legislation. Governments are capable of reducing the number of Ministers without being compelled to do so through legislation. More importantly, perhaps, the payroll vote is often taken to include Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who are not covered by current legislation and who would not be covered by the new clause. It is only by self-denying ordinance that those numbers are limited. Governments have clearly been capable of self-restraint, and that self-restraint would still be necessary if the new clause were accepted. As I have said, under the previous Government we had not only Ministers and PPSs, but tsars, envoys, special representatives, Regional Ministers and assistants to Regional Ministers. A lot of them have been removed but they were all elements of patronage within the House. If it is patronage we are seeking to address, then we have to address all those appointments, not just the ministerial ranks.
Let me repeat a point that was made earlier. Legislation would not cover the number of Opposition Front Benchers, which is also relevant if the concern is that there are too few independent voices from the Back Benches. I accept the principle of legislation on ministerial numbers as a back-stop, but surely the number of Ministers must be a function of need, which is not necessarily related to the number of MPs. When previous statutes increased the number of Ministers in the House, they were unrelated to any changes in the number of MPs: there has never been a clear link or a set ratio. At the moment, there can be one Minister for every 6.842 Members of Parliament or thereabouts. The new clause would enshrine that ratio in law in perpetuity. If it were to become law, the Government could appoint as Ministers no more than 87.692307 Members of the Chamber. That would be the relationship. I merely make the point that I do not believe that a simple arithmetic relationship is necessarily the right one to address.
We should not forget the purpose of having a ministerial presence in the House: we need sufficient Ministers to attend to the business in the House, to make statements, to answer questions, to introduce Bills and to contribute to debates. The House rightly expects the highest standards of accountability from its Ministers and we strive to meet those standards. Indeed, it is often complained that Ministers are too rarely seen when the House discusses issues for which they do not have direct responsibility. That reflects the reality that we demand a lot of our Ministers in this country, both to govern and to legislate.
The question of how many Ministers should sit in the House of Commons is bound up with other questions—for example, considering the number of Ministers in the House of Lords. As the Committee is aware, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is chairing a Committee on reform of the House of Lords. The Committee comprises Members from all three major political parties, as well as from both Houses—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Rhondda asks, “What’s that got to do with it?” as though reform of the House of Lords—the thing for which we have been arguing for 100 years—has nothing to do with the constitutional arrangements of this country.
The cross-party Committee is discussing all issues pertinent to reform, including size and composition, and whether the second Chamber is wholly or mainly elected. It will also discuss the position of Ministers in the reformed Second Chamber. Currently, there are far fewer Ministers in the House of Lords than in the Commons, but we will need to think carefully about how the distribution of Ministers may be affected by any changes to the size of the second Chamber, or by the introduction of elected Members.
The Committee is charged with producing a draft Bill early next year, which will then be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government hope that will be carried out by a Joint Committee of both Houses. It is possible that arguments may then be made for either a greater or smaller ministerial presence in the second Chamber. We should wait to hear the views of the Committee.
There is also an argument that the limit on Ministers in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 is arcane in other respects. For example, it makes no provision for Ministers who might fill the role on a part-time basis or a job share. It is expressed in terms of numbers of individuals rather than full-time equivalents. That should perhaps be part of any consideration.
For all those reasons, although I welcome the debate, the Government are not minded to accept the new clause. We shall reflect on the arguments made today and set out plans once we have achieved some consensus on the composition of the second Chamber, including the number of Ministers there. If it still appears—[Interruption.] I think it is important for the House to hear this. If it still appears necessary, there will be plenty of time at that stage to legislate before 2015. I urge the hon. Member for Broxbourne to withdraw the new clause, on the basis that we shall very carefully consider the arguments he has made.
Mr Walker
I say to new colleagues who were not here in 2009 that it was the most awful experience. We were led up the garden path by a powerful Executive and had our legs cut from underneath us. We vowed that we would never, ever let that happen again. We vowed that we would take control of this place back from the Executive.
I wish I was being braver in my new clause. All I am asking is that when the House of Commons reduces by a mere 50, we reduce the number of Ministers by a mere eight, yet in this age of new politics those on the Front Bench cannot even give us that. Colleagues, this is the night when the new politics will be born, or it will die. Please support new clause 7 tonight, to give new politics some meaning, because it will be driven by Back Benchers—it can never be driven from the Front Bench.
I call for a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—