House of Commons

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

Tuesday 2 November 2010

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

1. What recent discussions he has had on the likely effects on mental health patients of changes to health care provision arising from the comprehensive spending review.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

The Government confirmed their determination to protect the most vulnerable in our society by protecting both the NHS and social care in the recent spending review. The Chancellor also announced funding to expand access to talking therapies.

[Ian Swales]

Can the Minister give assurances that the Department of Health is having full discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions about the problems that those with mental health problems experience in returning to work?

[Paul Burstow]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I can certainly assure him that those discussions are ongoing and regular, and that we work very closely with colleagues, both ministerial and official, in the DWP. Indeed, we are evaluating two of the Department’s collaborative projects on employment advisers working with people recovering from depression and anxiety disorders.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

The Rokerfield mental health day care centre in my constituency is under threat of closure. Does the Minister share my disappointment that the county council cabinet members responsible for making that decision have all ignored my invitation to speak to service users before coming to their decision? Will he urge them to visit users first?

[Paul Burstow]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I am sure she would agree that it is important that we ensure that there is adequate funding in social care so that it is possible to continue to support services of this sort. That is why I am sure she would join me in thanking the Chancellor for the statement he made two weeks ago, when he confirmed that an additional £2 billion will be invested in social care. On her specific question, I will look at the matter in closer detail and write to her.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will be aware of the number of people in the criminal justice system with severe mental health problems—they make up some 15%, according to the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health. In my area of Dudley and Walsall, almost 2,000 people are on probation or in prison, yet only 40—just 2.5%—are in contact with mental health services. Will he discuss with his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice what we can do to improve that situation?

[Paul Burstow]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, which underscores the legacy that the Government have been left in terms of the paucity of these services as they are now and why we need to work closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, as indeed we are doing, to ensure that we provide good quality mental health support for offenders, both in prison and when they leave it.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Can the Minister assure us that he will encourage his departmental colleagues to ensure that, despite the influence of the comprehensive spending review, the confidential inquiry and the learning disabilities public health observatory will go beyond March and until the work is concluded?

[Paul Burstow]

The right hon. Gentleman does a lot of work in the area of learning disability. Indeed, we had a good debate in Westminster Hall earlier this year on this matter, in which I indicated the Government’s support for those observatories. We believe they play a very important role in our understanding of the issues.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

2. What progress his Department has made in the provision of specialist neuromuscular care in Bristol; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Of course, it is important that the commissioning of services, which is about getting the right treatment and services for people, is a decision that is made locally. The south west specialised commissioning group—SWSCG—has responsibility for commissioning specialised services for neuromuscular conditions in Bristol. I know that there have been some problems in the past, but since the Walton report the group has reviewed its provision of neuromuscular services and appointed both an additional paediatric neuromuscular consultant and a new adult neuromuscular consultant in Bristol, as part of the £l million investment for the south-west, which I am sure she will welcome.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the Minister for that comprehensive response. Families who live with muscle disease, such as the Arshad family, in Brislington, in my constituency, have welcomed the work of the SWSCG but are very worried about the impact that the introduction of GP-led commissioning will have on these services. They really feel that families like them will be left by the wayside. What reassurances can she give them?

[Anne Milton]

May I point out to the hon. Lady that, in fact, GPs are often very aware of the services that are needed? The neuromuscular team attached to the SWSCG has worked with the South West Muscle Group on the development of a provider register for hydrotherapy services, for example. Such things are best decided by GPs, who know exactly what people need, what treatment is needed and what care services are needed to ensure the best possible outcomes and the best possible quality of life.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

The national service framework for long-term conditions such as multiple sclerosis, in which I am very interested, was much praised at the time it was launched. Does the Minister feel that it was properly funded and that it has been run properly since? Has it lived up to the expectations that we all had of it three or four years ago when it was launched?

[Mr Speaker]

With particular reference to the care provided in Bristol.

[Anne Milton]

With particular reference to the care provided in Bristol, the one thing that I would say is that commissioning is not something that has done well. There is never any room for complacency in the provision of services or in the provision of treatment. We always need to strive to do better.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

3. What steps his Department is taking to increase the provision of preventative health care.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

We are committed to protecting and improving the nation’s health and well-being. Since the election, we have already announced our commitment to preventative action on cancer, including improved bowel cancer screening and a campaign on signs and symptoms to promote early diagnosis; investment in a programme of reablement for those leaving hospital; and £70 million of investment this year to increase access to talking therapies.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that dedicated health spending focused on the poorest areas in most need is urgently required to narrow the health inequalities that, as a recent National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee report show, actually widened under the Labour party?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because it enables us to point out that over the period of the previous Labour Government health inequalities in this country widened—life expectancy, for example, widened by 7% for men and 12.5% for women between the richest and the poorest areas of this country. We are very clear. Our public health White Paper, which will be published shortly, will focus on how we can not only deliver a more effective public health strategy, improving health outcomes for all, but improve health outcomes for the poorest fastest.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

There is an area of the country where public health inequalities have not widened, and it is the borough of Slough. Will the Secretary of State come to Slough and look at the work of health advocates, who are ordinary citizens who help to engage people with their health and avoid some of the conditions that have led to early deaths in Slough?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady might not recall, but about five and a half years ago I visited Slough to meet the health trainers, particularly in the Asian community, who were going to help people. Their focus was on diabetes. It has been a very effective pilot and we will need to work—we will do so—with local authorities and the NHS. We should work together, using dedicated public health resources of precisely that kind, to identify the risk of diabetes and to tackle it at source.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

On the Isle of Wight, the local NHS has decided that contraceptive pills may be given to girls as young as 13. Their parents and even their GPs are not involved. Nowhere else, I am told, shares that approach. Many of my constituents are horrified. What is the Secretary of State’s view?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that these decisions were made locally. Indeed, we support local decision making. We will ensure that such decisions are taken not only in the health service but alongside local authorities as part of their public health function. It is important that one is clear that a young person is competent to make such decisions. Subject to that, however, we are always clear that patients have a right to access health care on their own cognisance if they are competent to do so.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State accept that good preventative care walks hand in hand with good social care? Does he further accept that even if all efficiencies were made and every single pound of the so-called additional £2 billion for social care was to be spent, there will, as the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services warn, nevertheless be a shortfall of at least another £2 billion before the end of the comprehensive spending review? In those circumstances, why does the Treasury’s own document say:

“In social care, the Spending Review has provided additional funding needed to maintain current levels of care”?

Who is the public to trust and what are they to make of it?

[Mr Lansley]

First, may I welcome the hon. Lady to her position in the shadow health team? I do not accept her proposition. We are very clear about the nature of the efficiencies that can be made in social care, and we have established an efficiency group that is advising on how that can be done. In addition, in the spending review the Chancellor was able to announce that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has made £1 billion extra available, and we have made £1 billion available through the NHS. On that basis, there is no need for local authorities to have to reduce eligibility to social care.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of the potential contribution of StartHere to his Department’s programmes to reduce the digital divide in respect of health services.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

Access to information is a key pillar of our plans to empower patients and service users. We want to open up access to trusted health and care information to everyone, including through digital channels. Independent organisations have an important role to play in helping to ensure that health and care information reaches everyone. StartHere is a good example of how such organisations can help. I am very keen to see StartHere’s response to our consultation, “An Information Revolution”.

[Alun Michael]

I welcome the Minister’s positive response. Does he agree with me and, by the way, with Citizens Advice and the Royal British Legion that StartHere has the unique benefit of starting from the point of view of the person who needs information? It therefore increases efficiency and has the potential to save the health service money. Will he meet me to discuss how to realise those potential benefits?

[Mr Burns]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those comments. I pay tribute to him because he has been a champion of StartHere ever since its existence. He and I agree that it is crucial that information is provided to empower patients and citizens, not all of whom have access to websites and the internet. I am more than happy to meet him to discuss this further.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

5. What plans he has for future funding of specialist children’s hospitals.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

Specialist children's hospitals will continue to be funded through local commissioning and specialised commissioning based on payment by results and local contracting while also recognising the specific additional costs of specialist paediatric services.

[Tony Lloyd]

The Secretary of State will know that his Department has written to specialist children’s hospitals threatening to withdraw the top-up moneys that are recognised as important in treating the most critically ill children. That is outrageous and seems to run counter to the Government’s commitment not to cut funding. Will he go back to his Department and tell his officials that he will not go ahead with the reduction in top-up fees?

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid that I have to correct the hon. Gentleman. We are not withdrawing specialist top-up payments; the Department has acted on the basis of a review conducted by the university of York which was initiated by the Opposition Front Bench team’s predecessors when they were in government. They set up a review on specialist top-ups which said that the payments should go down from 78% to 25%, not that they should be withdrawn completely. We are reviewing that outcome with the specialist children’s hospitals and a meeting is taking place today to consider whether the review’s conclusions were accurate and applicable.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

Does the Minister agree with me and the 1999 Shields report that children’s accident and emergency, paediatrics and maternity units should be kept together in one hospital? Will he postpone the move of the Burnley children’s ward to Blackburn until the new GP commissioners are installed and can make an informed decision?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s point and we have discussed this at Burnley. I feel strongly—indeed, I know—that we must continue to apply the tests that I have set out for such issues of configuration, including that they will deliver improving clinical outcomes, be safe for patients and, as he rightly says, reflect the commissioning intentions of local GPs representing local patients.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

How can it possibly be right that the world-renowned staff at Great Ormond Street hospital in my constituency face, under this proposition, a reduction of £16 million in the funding of that hospital? NHS funding is supposed to be ring-fenced, but from the point of view of people at Great Ormond Street, it seems to be rather more ringed than fenced.

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman must realise that if we had listened to the Labour party in the comprehensive spending review, we would have cut the NHS budget, but we did not. We resisted the Labour party’s proposal, and resources for the NHS will increase in real terms, but there is then the matter of how those resources should be deployed to best effect. The application of the proposal—we have still to agree with children’s hospitals on how it will be applied—would have the overall effect of reducing Great Ormond Street’s total income by less than 2%.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s answer simply will not do. He is in government now, not us. He is making decisions to make deep cuts to our specialist children’s hospitals. He is trying to keep the NHS out of the public spotlight, and we will make sure that the public know what his plans for the NHS are.

I have the Secretary of State’s letter. He has not answered my questions and I ask him again to tell the House why, before today, no Minister has made any statement in public or in the House about these big stealth cuts to our children’s hospitals, and how much each one of the 35 specialist children’s hospitals will lose next year in funding to treat some of the most critically ill children in our country.

[Mr Lansley]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place. I hope he enjoys being shadow Secretary of State as much as I did, and that he enjoys an even longer tenure. I explained to his right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) the impact on Great Ormond Street. I do not discount its importance to the hospital, and it is being discussed today with specialist children’s hospitals by a group chaired by the national clinical director, but it represents less than 2% of Great Ormond Street’s total income. This is about specialist top-ups to the tariff where the new tariff has been introduced, which in itself makes differences to the income and the accuracy of costs of services provided by those hospitals. It was all set up by the previous Government. They started the review. They published it on 16 December 2009. It was not our doing; it was their doing.

[John Healey]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome to me in my job. I have no intention of being in the job for six years, as he was before he came into government. We will have won an election before the end of that period.

Big stealth cuts to our children’s hospitals are not what the public expected to see when they heard the Prime Minister promise to protect the NHS budget. Will the Secretary of State admit that he is double-counting £1 billion a year in the spending review as both money for the NHS and money to paper over the cracks in social care? Will he accept the new House of Commons Library research report, which confirms:

“Including the (social care) funding is critical to the description of the settlement as a ‘real terms increase’; without it, funding for the NHS falls by £500 million—0.54% in real terms.”

When did the Secretary of State tell the Prime Minister that the Government are breaking his promise to protect the NHS budget?

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. Even if we did not treat up to £1 billion to support social care through the NHS as NHS money—we should treat it as NHS money, but even if we did not—there would still be an increase in the resources available to the NHS in real terms each year. It is NHS money. The right hon. Gentleman must accept that this year we are spending £70 million on reablement, which has the effect of mitigating need in social care and reducing emergency readmissions to hospital. We will provide NHS money, which in itself supports health gain and social care support.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

6. What assessment he has made of the likely effect on cancer survival rates of the implementation of his proposed reforms of the NHS.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

Our health spending now matches European levels, but our cancer survival rates do not match European levels. If we brought survival rates up to the best in Europe, we could save up to 10,000 lives a year. Our updated cancer strategy will set out how our NHS reforms will improve cancer survival rates.

[Julian Sturdy]

Does my hon. Friend agree that local charity groups, such as York Against Cancer in my constituency, play a vital role in the fight against that disease? Can he assure me that the Government will continue to support and work with the voluntary sector to provide the very best cancer care?

[Paul Burstow]

The Government certainly work closely with the voluntary sector in many ways to promote and develop our approach to cancer services. We value the work of organisations such as York Against Cancer because of the support that they provide through information and support for people diagnosed with cancer and their families. It is very important that we continue to support such activities.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that cancer survival outcomes are very closely linked to poverty and inequality? Although I concede that inequality widened under the previous Government, how can the present Government hope to bear down on poverty and inequality in the context of an overall policy framework that envisages a steep rise in unemployment, with all the poor health outcomes associated with that, and a commitment to protecting health spending, which is unravelling by the day?

[Paul Burstow]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, and particularly her acknowledgement of the previous Government’s failure to close the health inequality gap. The Office for Budget Responsibility identified that there will be growth in employment during the spending review period, and this Government are determined to make sure that we see that growth take place. When it comes to cancer survival, what we need to do most, and most importantly, is make sure that people are aware of the signs and symptoms of cancer, because if they are, they present earlier, they get a diagnosis earlier and their survival chances are greatly improved.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

7. What mechanisms he plans to introduce for public access to financial information about general practices under his Department’s proposals for GP commissioning.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

Under our proposals, commissioning budgets will be held by GP-led consortiums, which will be established as statutory bodies, rather than by individual GP practices. The commissioning budgets will be distinct from the income that GP practices earn under their contracts for providing primary medical care. GP consortiums will have to make their accounts available to the public.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I welcome the Minister’s reply. As GP practices have always been treated as private partnerships and are not open to financial scrutiny or freedom of information requests, it is important that £80 billion of public spending is, in the way he describes, subject to scrutiny, including by this House.

[Mr Burns]

May I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the NHS commissioning board will not allocate commissioning budgets directly to GP practices? Neither will they be included in either partnership or individual GP accounts. As is the situation now, those GP accounts will remain entirely separate. Our proposals set out clear lines of accountability in respect of commissioning resources. Each GP consortium must prepare a set of annual accounts, which the NHS commissioning board will include in its consolidated account. I hope that that reassures the right hon. Gentleman.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm that patients and councillors will sit on consortium boards, and that the boards will meet in public, so that there will be real transparency and accountability at the point of decision making, and accountability will not be sidelined to health and well-being boards?

[Mr Burns]

May I explain to the hon. Lady that, no, councillors will not be on the GP consortiums? They will have a full and active role to play on the health and well-being boards, so that they can take a full part in determining the local needs of the local health economy. That is the right venue for them.

[Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that as those commissioning consortiums are established, it will be important to ensure that they are subject to proper financial assurance, in the same way as Monitor applies such principles to foundation trusts? Can he assure the House that that will be one of the responsibilities of the NHS commissioning board?

[Mr Burns]

There is not altogether the same comparison to be made with Monitor and foundation trusts, but I certainly understand and take on board the general principle behind my right hon. Friend’s question. I think that it is important that there is accountability.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

The Government want to create about 500 new GP commissioning groups and scrap 150 primary care trusts, which the King’s Fund says will cost £3 billion. Yet, last year the current Prime Minister promised that

“there will be no more of the tiresome, meddlesome, top-down re-structures… The disruption is terrible, the demoralisation worse—and the waste of money inexcusable.”

Can the Minister tell us when the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) changed his mind?

[Mr Burns]

May I begin by congratulating the hon. Lady on her elevation to this position? I know that in the past she has worked at the Department of Health, so her experience will no doubt help her Front-Bench colleagues who do not share such a background. However, she is factually wrong, although no doubt she will not be wrong in the future, because we have never said that there will be 500 consortiums. It will up to local decision making to determine how many consortiums there will be. The hon. Lady can believe what she reads in the newspapers, but if I were her I would wait to see what actually happens.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

8. What mechanisms he plans to put in place to provide for GP revalidation after the ending of primary care trusts.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The General Medical Council is responsible for the revalidation of doctors, rather than primary care trusts. In the current structures, subject to parliamentary approval, responsible officers in primary care trusts will make recommendations to the GMC on the fitness to practice of doctors in primary care. Before the dissolution of primary care trusts, we will consult on options for responsible officers in primary care.

[Henry Smith]

I am very grateful for that answer from my right hon. Friend. I welcome the commissioning role that GPs are to have. Does he believe, however, that there needs to be a distance between revalidation and local GP practices, and that that would best sit at a county or metropolitan borough level?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Indeed, we will take account of precisely the point that he makes when we consult on how responsible officers in primary care will be established in future following primary care trusts. It is important to recognise that revalidation should be a process very like the normal appraisal of staff. However, when it comes to investigation of fitness to practise, it will be important for there to be proper independence.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

This is a very important issue affecting patient safety. The Secretary of State will know that the British Medical Association has raised significant concerns about the revalidation proposals, referring specifically to the implications of the reorganisation. Does he recall criticising NHS reorganisations and their cost in his conference speech on 5 October 2009? Why, then, has he embarked on a reorganisation that will cost an estimated £3 billion at a time when the NHS will also face deep cuts because of his broken promises over funding?

[Mr Lansley]

May I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities?

We are doing this because it is absolutely essential for the NHS to use resources better to deliver improving outcomes for patients. A combination of the ability for general practice-led consortiums to combine the management of care for patients with the management of resources is instrumental to achieving that. It will deliver substantial reductions in management costs. We will achieve a £1.9 billion-a-year reduction in management costs by 2015.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

9. What progress he has made on increasing the provision of specialist neuromuscular care in (a) the north-west and (b) England.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I pay tribute to the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign and a number of other organisations that have been so successful in raising these issues. A review of specialist neuromuscular services in the north-west was completed in September 2010. I understand that the focus of the review was the particular pressure areas of service provision highlighted by Muscular Dystrophy Campaign reports and corroborated locally by key stakeholders.

[Graham Evans]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Muscular dystrophy is a particularly terrible muscle-wasting disease that afflicts many constituents of mine. Will the Minister agree to meet me and the NHS north-west specialised commissioning group to discuss the action required to reduce the £13.6 million spent on unplanned emergency admissions for neuromuscular conditions in the region?

[Anne Milton]

I know that I speak for all the ministerial team in saying that we are always very happy to meet groups to go through some of the situations. I would also urge continuing to campaign locally. If services are not provided adequately and properly, the unnecessary admissions due to that poor provision are considerable, as are the costs associated with them.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

10. What assessment his Department has made of the effect on cancer patients of changes to the maximum waiting period for cancer treatment.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, because it allows me to make it absolutely clear that the Government have not changed the waiting times standards for cancer services. The revision to the NHS operating framework for this year confirmed that the NHS is expected to continue to ensure that people with suspected cancers are seen within the agreed waiting times standards.

[Jim McGovern]

I thank the Minister for his response. I am sure that he agrees with me that the policy brought in by the previous Government to ensure guaranteed minimum waiting times for cancer patients made great strides forward, not only for patients but for their families. May I urge him to ensure that this is not changed by any Government policy changes and that guaranteed minimum waiting times remain at the forefront of treatment for cancer patients?

[Paul Burstow]

I am grateful for the question. The answer, of course, is yes, we are determined to maintain these targets because we believe they make a difference.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Will the Minister ensure that patients who currently do not have access to a clinical nurse specialist will have such access? Research suggests that it considerably improves experiences and outputs.

[Paul Burstow]

The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to ensure that we invest in cancer specialists, and in the past six months the coalition Government have set out a number of steps that we will take, and are taking now, to improve cancer survival rates and cancer services. Raising awareness of signs and symptoms, new screening methods for bowel cancer and improving the number of specialist staff are just some of the things into which the Government have already started putting additional resources, in order to make a difference.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

11. What steps he is taking to reduce administrative costs in the NHS.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

We are cutting management costs in the NHS by 45%. We will cut total administrative costs as well, and in total that will save £1.9 billion a year by 2015.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the Secretary of State. I recently spent a morning in my constituency with local paramedics and was shocked to learn that the very best paramedic can earn just one tenth of that earned by the highest-paid NHS manager. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to address those skewed priorities?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware that we in the Department and across government have invited Will Hutton to examine pay differentials in public services, and we have talked to him about precisely that. In my hon. Friend’s area, the earnings of a qualified member of ambulance staff would be about £37,000 on average, which of course is only about a sixth of the highest pay of an NHS manager.

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Past reorganisations of the national health service have taken years to embed and affected performance negatively, and history suggests that, given the scale of the reorganisations in the White Paper, they will be no exception. Can the Secretary of State tell us how much the administrative costs of the changes will be?

[Mr Lansley]

Perhaps I can remind the right hon. Gentleman that the major part of the reorganisation is to eliminate strategic health authorities and primary care trusts, to focus resources on the front line, to get them into the hands of those who are responsible for delivering care and, in the process, to deliver £1.9 billion a year of savings on administration costs.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

12. What steps he is taking to prioritise funding for dementia research from his Department’s research budget.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

Dementia is a terrible disease that devastates the lives of thousands of people in this country, and research is clearly key. The coalition programme signalled the Government’s intention to prioritise funding for dementia research. The spending review confirmed that and committed to real-terms increases in spending on health research.

[Heather Wheeler]

Will the Minister expand on the future funding of mental health trusts? We all know the statistic that one in four people suffers from mental health problems in their lifetime, and it is a great problem in South Derbyshire.

[Paul Burstow]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that it is important that we are clear about that. Currently, funding for mental health services comes via primary care trusts, and from 2013-14 onwards allocations will be provided via GP commissioning consortiums.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s first answer, but may I ask him to go further and place in the Library a list of all the areas of principal research that the Government are to fund, both directly and through research charities? It would be incredibly helpful for the public to understand exactly how the Government intend to handle the research programme for dementia and all other areas of health.

[Paul Burstow]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, because I chair the ministerial group that is considering how we can improve and increase the supply of research. It is examining a number of matters, including how we can ensure that there is an increase in the volume of research, how we can engage the public—he is absolutely right about that—and how we can translate research into practice quickly. Next year we will set out more detailed proposals and publish the details of all the research programmes that are under way.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

13. What plans he has for future public funding for the hereditary breast cancer helpline.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

I congratulate Wendy Watson on starting the helpline in 1996. I also congratulate the hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Mr McLoughlin) on the support that they have given it. I know that it has experienced difficulties in gaining funding from primary care trusts, with only 36 of the 152 PCTs providing it, but the cancer networks are working on an interim solution to fund the helpline through the transition period prior to the NHS commissioning board and GP commissioning coming online.

[Natascha Engel]

I thank the Minister, but what I am most concerned about is the fact that Wendy Watson is running the helpline on a shoestring from her home in Derbyshire. She is getting small grants from PCTs, but once PCTs are abolished, where will the money come from? Can the Minister commit to funding the national helpline, which is the only one of its kind, directly from the Department of Health?

[Anne Milton]

I point out to the hon. Lady that with the new commissioning consortiums, those decisions will be made at a much more local level. Only 36 of 152 PCTs are currently contributing to the helpline, which is nonsense when one considers that they are being asked for only £422 each. It is right that such decisions should be made locally, particularly in view of the sort of emotional support that the helpline can give.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to increase the provision of preventative health care.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

In addition to what I said in reply to Question 3, I can tell my hon. Friend that we will shortly be publishing a public health White Paper, which for the first time will not only demonstrate a commitment across Government to improving public health and reducing health inequalities, but introduce a strategy and implementation programme to achieve precisely that.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is responsible for 30,000 deaths a year, and it is the second largest cause of emergency hospital admissions in the UK. In response to the consultations that have been received from, among others, groups in my constituency, will the Secretary of State please tell me when the Government plan to publish the clinical strategy on COPD?

[Mr Lansley]

We need to continue our work with the British Lung Foundation, because that has been extremely helpful. We are in the process—through the consultation on the White Paper and other such consultations—of putting in place an outcomes framework, which will enable us to see how outcomes can be achieved for people with respiratory diseases. In the meantime, I hope that we will push forward with the commissioning guidelines, clinical guidelines and quality standards that will help to support some of the COPD initiatives that I have seen, including a successful community COPD service in Somerset.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that 6,000 women a year die from ovarian cancer. Will he welcome the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines that were published this year, and, in so doing, will he tell us why he has decided to neuter NICE? The independent assessment that it provides was established in 1999 to ensure that, where we have a finite pool of resources, money is spent properly. Are not the pharmaceutical companies now rubbing their hands in glee?

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman has it completely wrong. We are not neutralising NICE. On the contrary, we will focus NICE on what its real job always was and should be, which is to provide independent advice to the NHS about the relative clinical and cost-effectiveness of treatments so as to achieve the best outcomes. The point that he may be misunderstanding is that by 2014 we intend to ensure that we are no longer denying access to the new medicines that patients need, because we will have a new and more effective value-based pricing system of reimbursement to pharmaceutical companies.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

15. What advice his Department provides to NHS trusts seeking to renegotiate private finance initiative contracts.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

This Department and the Treasury provide guidance and advice to NHS schemes to maximise the savings and best value for money they can achieve when making variations to their PFI contracts for additional services or facilities, conducting market testing exercises for support services or when assessing refinancing requests from their private sector partners.

[Penny Mordaunt]

What can the Government do to assist the Queen Alexandra hospital in Portsmouth, which is under serious financial pressure because of its PFI contract, a £37 million deficit and, thanks to false planning assumptions, not enough patients to make a super hospital sustainable?

[Mr Burns]

May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her assiduous work in her constituency? She represents her constituents and looks after their interests regarding the provision of the highest quality health care. From conversations that I have had with her, I fully appreciate her concerns about the financial situation. I understand that South Central strategic health authority is working closely with the trust as it implements a cost-improvement programme to achieve financial balance.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

16. How many diagnostic tests for cancer he expects to be carried out by the NHS in each of the next four years.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

The Department collects waiting times and activity data on 15 key diagnostic tests, but these data do not include the reason for a diagnostic test, such as suspected cancer. The NHS carries out more than 40 million diagnostic tests per year. The cancer reform strategy review is looking at the scope to improve survival rates by increased use of some diagnostic tests.

[Angela Smith]

I thank the Minister for that answer, although it was not quite as precise as I would have liked. How will those numbers be impacted by the Government’s decision to abandon the one-week guarantee for cancer tests and their decision not to performance-manage the abandonment of the 18-week diagnostic target?

[Mr Burns]

I say in the politest way possible to the hon. Lady that we cannot abandon a target that has never been imposed in the first place. May I remind her that, as a sop to the Labour party conference more than a year ago, the former Prime Minister merely announced an aspiration? He never provided any funding or said where the funding should go, and he never provided any clinical evidence for the viability of the proposal. Saying that the Government have abandoned a target when it never existed is sheer poppycock.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The all-party cancer group’s report last year found that those with rarer cancers got a bit of a raw deal from the NHS when it came to access to treatment and drugs. How will the new cancer fund put right that wrong?

[Mr Burns]

I am sure that my hon. Friend, through the tremendous work done by him and his colleagues on the all-party group, will appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s initiative—providing £50 million for the rest of this year and £200 million from next year for the cancer fund—is an important step forward in helping those who suffer from cancer. I am sure that my hon. Friend will also welcome the fact that work is ongoing on refining, following the review, the cancer reform strategy, and we are looking at the scope for improving survival rates by the increased use of diagnostic tests and at improving care across the board, so that we raise our standards to the highest in Europe rather than being the poor relation.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

My responsibility is to lead the NHS in delivering improved health outcomes in England, to lead a public health service that improves the health of the nation and reduces health inequalities, and to lead the reform of adult social care, which supports and protects vulnerable people.

[Julie Elliott]

In the light of the 0.5% real cut in the NHS after the social care switch, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) referred, may I ask when the Secretary of State decided to break his promise on a real-terms funding increase for the NHS? Does he accept that that is not what my constituents expected when they heard the Prime Minister promise real increases for the NHS?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady’s constituents expect the truth, which is that we are providing increased resources for the NHS in real terms, taking it from £104 billion to £114 billion. That is completely contrary to what we were advised to do by the Labour party, which said that we should cut the NHS budget. We did not do that; we increased it.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

T2. The all-party group on multiple sclerosis held an all-day seminar last week on the subject of drug pricing, during which it broadly welcomed the end of the risk-sharing scheme and looked forward to value-based pricing, which will be introduced shortly. That welcome is subject to two important conditions: first, that NICE clinical guidelines should be updated and continued; and secondly, that the NICE risk appraisal should be abandoned. Does the Secretary of State agree with me on those two conditions?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes; my hon. Friend is absolutely right. As we implement our plans for the value-based pricing of medicines from 2014, NICE’s role will change. It will focus on advising how best to use treatments and to develop quality standards for the NHS, rather than recommending whether patients should be able to access particular drugs. We want patients to have access to the medicines that their clinicians believe are best for them.

[David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the Secretary of State can provide some reassurance to residents of Cleadon Park estate in my constituency who are concerned about the consequences of primary care trust abolition for the PCT-owned, PCT-organised and PCT-financed health centre that brings together primary and secondary care, and local authority and community services. Is there not a real danger of the sort of expensive “anarchy” of which Professor Tony Travers of the London School of Economics has warned?

[Mr Lansley]

Happily, I can offer the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents great reassurance that not only will the relationship between community health care and specialist health care in hospitals be improved by general practice-led commissioning—because clinicians will speak to clinicians—but the services they rely on will be improved, because we will no longer spend so much money on PCT administration. He will know that in 10 years under his Government the number of managers in the NHS increased by more than 60%.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

T4. NHS Warwickshire is consulting on the future of Bramcote hospital, which serves my constituency and the wider north Warwickshire area. That could lead to the closure of the hospital which has provided valuable intermediate care to my constituents over many years. To close the hospital, NHS Warwickshire requires the Department of Health to meet substantial impairment costs. Can the Secretary of State assure my constituents that before any decision is made by the Department to pay any such costs, the views of the local GP consortiums and local people will be taken into account?

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

As my hon. Friend says, NHS Warwickshire is consulting on the future of intermediate care at Bramcote hospital. I hope that he will engage with that consultation and that the views of local people will be taken fully into account by NHS Warwickshire in deciding the way forward. As he knows, the Secretary of State has set out various tests and NHS Warwickshire’s decision must have the support of the GP commissioners; must strengthen public-patient engagement; and must be based on sound clinical evidence. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured that those tests will be fully taken into account as part of the consultation process.

[Mr Speaker]

The House is obliged to the Minister.

[Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)]

T8. Following the coalition Government’s announcement that the NHS budget was to be protected and, indeed, increased, can the Secretary of State tell me why a ward will be closed at Calderdale Royal hospital? Will he reverse that crazy decision immediately for the safety of my constituents?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot tell the hon. Lady precisely why that proposal has been made, but I will investigate and write to her. Increasing resources overall for the NHS does not mean that everything will stay the same in every particular. There will be change, including the redirection of resources towards providing services in the community rather than in hospitals.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

T5. Occupational therapists are crucial in effective rehabilitation. Will the Minister advise me on what role he sees for occupational therapists in using the £70 million investment in reablement announced by the Government?

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the Government’s commitment to develop reablement services, especially the win, win, win that they can deliver for the individual who gets back on his feet, gets his confidence back and leads his life independently; for the social services departments, which do not have to provide ongoing support; and for the NHS, which does not have to deal with readmissions. Occupational therapists have a vital role to play in providing good quality support following discharge and are therefore critical players in the development of reablement services around the country.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

T9. Is it appropriate for my constituents in Huddersfield to be lectured about healthy living standards by a Minister who is out of condition, overweight and a chain smoker?

[Mr Lansley]

I take it that the hon. Gentleman is not referring to me in those respects, although I can probably claim one or two of those epithets. We are none of us looking to lecture anybody: we are trying to lead a public health strategy that enables everybody to make healthier choices and lead healthier lives.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

T6. May I invite the Minister to congratulate my local newspaper, the Northamptonshire Evening Telegraph, on running a successful campaign to encourage people to sign up to become organ donors? Given the success of that campaign, perhaps the Department might like to encourage other local newspapers to do the same.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

I would certainly like to join my hon. Friend in extending those congratulations. Local papers can have a huge impact in raising the issue of organ donation. Donor rates have risen in this country by 20% since 2007-08, which happened on the back of the organ donation taskforce, which looked at the system in 2008. The issue is complicated and quite sensitive in some areas, but the most important thing is to raise awareness in local communities. Local papers are an ideal vehicle for that.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Since when has handing over the running of any service to a powerful producer interest been good for the consumer—that is, the public? In the absence of primary care trusts, who will do the difficult but important job of performance-managing underperforming GPs and, where necessary, weeding out incompetent ones?

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman was a member of a Government who said that they would introduce practice-based commissioning, but who then let primary care trusts override the general practice role in determining not only the proper care of patients, but how resources should best be used to make that happen. If he is defending primary care trusts, he is making a very sad choice, because in reality they know that they simply increased their management but did not succeed when it came to commissioning. The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), the former Health Committee Chairman, produced a report showing that, and it is very clear that—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not want to be unkind to the Secretary of State, but I am thirsting to hear the question from Mr David Burrowes.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

T7. My right hon. Friend has shown great interest in the reconfiguration plans for Enfield hospitals, culminating in the moratorium announcement outside Chase Farm hospital in May. Would he expect the outcome of the clinical review to be simply an endorsement of the present clinical strategy, which is based on previous models of care for emergency and maternity services, or should it embrace future health care choices, opening up to GPs, patients and the public?

[Mr Speaker]

We have got it.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He knows that the criteria that I set out, which were repeated earlier during questions, must be applied, not only to the strategies that were previously presented, but to potential new strategies that Barnet and Chase Farm hospitals might wish to present, in order to ensure that GP commissioning intentions, future patient choice and public views are properly reflected.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents are being offered the swine flu vaccine in combination with the seasonal flu vaccine. Will the Secretary of State ensure that they have the choice to have those vaccines separately?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will forgive me, but I do not propose to make that available, as it would be a great deal more expensive. Each year, and on an international basis, the World Health Organisation advises on what the seasonal flu vaccine should consist of, and it almost always consists of the three most likely strains combined together into one vaccine.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Is the Secretary of State prepared to make a statement on the vital work of the co-ordination of organ donation at the hospital level, particularly given that under the current system there is no specified organ donation co-ordinator at the Westmorland general hospital in Kendal?

[Anne Milton]

Organ donation co-ordinators are a vital part of the team in increasing organ donation rates. The organ donation taskforce recommended 100 extra organ donation co-ordinators, but we must not forget that there are other things. For example, training for staff who are likely to come into contact with potential organ donors is vital. We have got to get those rates up.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

How can the Minister justify the already increasing delay in people having cancer diagnostic tests?

[Mr Simon Burns]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was here earlier, but we explained in great detail about the target that never existed. The latest figures show that the median time has gone from 1.7 weeks to 1.9 weeks, but that is because those figures were for the period between June and August—the holiday time—when many people changed their bookings or appointments to fit in with the school holidays or their own holidays. The figures for September are already on course to get us back to the median for that time of the year.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

I know that the Secretary of State is aware of the high level of teenage pregnancies in this country, and particularly in Hastings in my constituency. What action are we going to take to support those young women? We all know of the negative health outcomes that come with those young pregnancies.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, indeed I do. It is sad to report that we have the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in western Europe. At the heart of this is the fact that we must have community strategies that are geared not least to improving the self-confidence and self-esteem of young people, so that they are able to make better decisions. We must assist them in doing that, but I would also mention the importance of ensuring that we have long-acting reversible contraception available for young people.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

Each year, around 7,000 more people in the UK are diagnosed with HIV, and more people than ever are living with the virus. How will the Government’s new public health White Paper address HIV prevention?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the White Paper is yet to be published, so I will not pre-empt it, but it will be important to ensuring that there is a clear strategy for improving sexual health services. He will share our view that we want to deal with the extent of undiagnosed HIV and the extent to which people coming into contact with health care services are not offered HIV tests.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I recently met a group of Bournemouth and Poole college health and social care students whose research indicated that the average age for repeated sexual activity in the UK is now 16. With that and other information, they have set up a campaign to reduce the age for cervical screening to 20. What action will the Minister take?

[Anne Milton]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She is right to raise the issue of the reducing age of sexual activity, and certainly the public health White Paper that we will publish later this year will have a significant impact on that. Cervical screening must be addressed, and it is important to raise the uptake rate to a much higher level to ensure early diagnosis.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Dr Clive Peedell, a consultant oncologist at James Cook university hospital in Middlesbrough, said that the coalition Government’s plans for the NHS

“are a roadmap to privatisation”.

That was his reaction to the King’s Fund report, which argues that the plans to make savings in direct NHS expenditure while dismantling local PCTs has the support of fewer than one in four doctors. What is the Secretary of State’s response to that overwhelming opposition from local doctors to the Government’s plans?

[Mr Lansley]

We will, of course, respond to the consultation in due course, but support for the principles of the White Paper was widespread and came from local government and the medical and nursing professions. The issues that we will address in the consultation were mainly about implementation of the principles, but support for the principles was widespread.

[Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government’s policy is to ensure that over the next four years we deliver efficiency gains from the health service, valued by the chief executive at between £15 billion and £20 billion? As that target was first set out by the Labour party when it was in government, will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity to invite the new shadow Secretary of State to endorse that programme, and to support its specific execution as each change is introduced?

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I invite the shadow Secretary of State to respond to it in due course. We will ensure that the NHS uses resources more efficiently to meet increasing demand and costs in the NHS. Savings of that order are required, and the NHS is on track to make them.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I would like to return to the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) about the national hereditary breast cancer helpline. The Minister’s response was inept. She said that a national service will be funded by tons of different GP commissioning groups. That just will not happen. She said nice words about Wendy Watson, but her Government’s policies will see the end of that helpline unless she intervenes. Will she please ensure national funding for a national service?

[Anne Milton]

As I said earlier, the cancer networks are working on an interim solution for funding the helpline through the transition period to the new commissioning arrangements. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Labour party tried to tell people what to do from the centre and micro-managed everything. What happened was that no local decisions were made. I do not doubt the value of the helpline. It is crucial that emotional and practical support for those at high risk of breast cancer is available, and the helpline is one way of doing that. It is extremely important that such decisions are made locally. Telling people what to do from the centre does not work.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry that some colleagues are left disappointed, but on such occasions demand, as in the health service, tends to be greater than supply.

Prisoners’ Right to Vote

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

15:34

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

(Urgent question): To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government’s plans to give prisoners the vote.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

The UK’s blanket ban on sentenced prisoners voting was declared unlawful by the grand chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in October 2005, as a result of a successful challenge by a prisoner, John Hirst. The Government accept, as did the previous Government, that as a result of the judgment of the Strasbourg Court in the Hirst case, there is a need to change the law. This is not a choice; it is a legal obligation. Ministers are currently considering how to implement the judgment, and when the Government have made a decision, the House will be the first to know.

[Sadiq Khan]

Mr Speaker, you have yet again agreed to allow an urgent question so that we can ask the Government to account to the House for decisions that have been preannounced in the media. The news that prisoners are to be given the vote is a matter of great concern to the public. The House will note that the Deputy Prime Minister is not here to answer this important urgent question. I have 10 short questions for the Minister who is here to speak on his behalf.

When the previous Government consulted on this matter, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who was then the shadow Secretary of State for Justice and is now the Attorney-General, described the prospect of giving prisoners the vote as “ludicrous”. Does the Minister share that view? One of the most troubling aspects of the European Court ruling is that it opens the door to the possibility of serious offenders being given the vote. Will he explain how the Government would ensure that serious offenders are not given the vote? Press reports suggest that sentence length will be the key determinant in deciding which prisoners can vote. If that is the case, what length of sentence do the Government have in mind? How will they ensure that prisoners who are guilty of serious offences but serving short sentences are not given the vote? Will the Minister provide details of the precise mechanics that prisoner voting will entail? Can he also tell us whether prisoners will be allowed to vote in referendums as well as elections?

The Prime Minister is reportedly “exasperated” and “furious” at having to agree to votes for prisoners. Does the Minister share that view? There is a strong sense that the decision is being forced on this country against the will both of the Government and of the people’s representatives in this Parliament. For the sake of public trust in British democracy, will the Minister who is standing in for the Deputy Prime Minister therefore agree that any legislation put before the House on this vital issue should be the subject of a free vote?

[Mr Harper]

No one would have realised, listening to that, that the right hon. Gentleman was ever a member of the previous Government, who also accepted that the law needed to be changed, and accepted the judgment. I have looked carefully at the media reports, and all I can see is an expression by the Government, relating to what they are going to say in a pending legal case, that they must comply with the law. I would not have thought that explaining that the Government had to comply with the law was particularly revelatory. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman shared our view when he was in government. He was quite right to draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Prime Minister is exasperated. I suspect that every Member of the House is exasperated about this, but we have no choice about complying with the law.

The fact that the previous Government failed for five years to do what they knew was necessary has left our country in a much worse position, both because of the possibility of having to pay damages and because case law has moved on. The only thing that would be worse than giving prisoners the vote would be giving them the vote and having to pay them damages as well. That is the position that the previous Government left us in.

I shall now turn to the right hon. Gentleman’s questions. I made it clear in my statement that Ministers were considering how to implement the judgment, and when decisions have been taken they will be announced to the House at the Dispatch Box in the usual way. No decisions have been taken, and I am therefore unable to answer any of his questions at this time. The previous Government took five years to do nothing when they knew that something had to be done—in exactly the same way as they behaved in not dealing with the deficit. This Government have been in office for only a matter of months, but yet again our two parties are having to deal with the mess left behind by Labour.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Will the Minister explain how the damages figure of millions of pounds has been arrived at, bearing in mind that nobody has yet had a payment? If ever we are forced into paying out damages, I suggest that we knock them off the payments that we have to make to Brussels.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend should know that the European Court of Human Rights is based in Strasbourg, and that this is nothing to do with the European Union. The two issues are completely separate. We have been a signatory to the European convention on human rights for the best part of 60 years. Indeed, British lawyers helped to draft it after the second world war. There are currently more than 1,000 pending cases, and there is a real risk that judges will award millions of pounds in damages to be paid by our taxpayers to prisoners who have been denied the vote. That risk has been left to us by the inaction of the previous Government.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

What estimate have the Government made of the cost to the honest law-abiding taxpayer of their decision to run up the white flag on this issue?

[Mr Harper]

As I said, the previous Government and this Government have both accepted that the Government generally have to comply with the law. We are considering how to comply with it, and we will announce our decisions in due course. This is not a choice; it is an obligation. The hon. Gentleman needs to understand that the only way of avoiding this would be if he were prepared to leave the European convention, which his Front Benchers are not prepared to do.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Is my hon. Friend not being a little unfair to the previous Government, who, after all, had done a lot of detailed work on how they would eventually implement this provision? Is it not fairly clear that if the Government are saying to somebody, “You must be in prison, and you must abide by the law and the decision of the court,” they can hardly add, “But we will ignore the decisions of the courts”?

[Mr Harper]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. The previous Government accepted that the law needed to be changed and brought forward a number of proposals to enfranchise prisoners, but they simply did not have the gumption to do anything. As ever, they left it behind for somebody else to clear up.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

I have worked in prison, and I know that there are many hundreds of incarcerated people who should have no role whatever in this country’s democracy, and no say in how it is run. When will we be able to decide for which offences, and for which length of sentences, prisoners will remain excluded from the right to vote?

[Mr Harper]

As I said in my statement and in my response to the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), Ministers are currently considering how to implement the judgment. When the Government have taken those decisions we will announce them to this House, which is the right thing to do. If we need to make changes in the law, we will bring our proposals before the House in the usual way.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Is this not another case of more legal nonsense from Europe? Is it not about time that we scrapped the Human Rights Act 1998 and introduced a British Bill of Rights—or at the very least repealed the Human Rights Act within a freedom Bill?

[Mr Harper]

I am afraid that my hon. Friend has not followed this case very closely. If the Human Rights Act disappeared today, that would make no difference. The decision was made by the European Court in Strasbourg. British courts upheld our domestic law, which is why the decision was appealed to the Strasbourg Court. Even if the Human Rights Act disappeared tomorrow, I am afraid that the judgment would still stand.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that the Murdoch scribblers and other tabloid writers are busy writing the headline, “Tories soft on crime, and soft on the perpetrators of crime”?

[Mr Harper]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is so focused on what the Murdoch press is doing. The Government are considering how to comply with the law, just as the hon. Gentleman’s Government had to comply with it. The Government whom he supported accepted that the law had to be changed—[Interruption.] Or rather I should say, as has just been pointed out to me, the Government whom he sometimes supported. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and others consulted on detailed proposals to change the law, but they just never got round to doing anything.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Does the Minister recognise that is there a great deal of exasperation on the Conservative Benches not just about the disgraceful change in the law, but about the fact that Labour Members are trying to present themselves as Eurosceptics when they signed up to every bit of European legislation that was put before them?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend has made his point very well. The synthetic outrage expressed by Labour Members whose Government accepted the need to comply with the law, consulted on proposals to do so, and yet again failed to make the necessary decisions—[Interruption.] The shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tooting, is yelling from a sedentary position. His party was in power for five years after the judgment was made, and did nothing about it. We have been in power for only six months, but we are getting on with considering how to implement the judgment, and when we have made our decisions, we will present them to the House.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

It has not been a good couple of days for the Government as far as Europe is concerned. Yesterday we heard the ludicrous announcement of an increase in the EU budget, and today we have heard this announcement. Rather than uttering expressions of exasperation and frustration, will the Minister tell the House what the Government will do to bring powers back to the House on behalf of the British people?

[Mr Harper]

Like others, the right hon. Gentleman is confusing the European Court and the European convention on human rights with the European Union. They have nothing to do with the European Union.

[Mr Dodds]

I know that.

[Mr Harper]

So the right hon. Gentleman must know that they are not in any way connected. We could do as he suggests only if Britain were to abrogate its signature to the European convention on human rights. Is that really what he wants us to do?

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend please explain, for the edification of the House, what would happen if the Government refused to accept the findings of the European Court of Human Rights, and what would happen if we accepted the findings but refused to make any compensatory payments?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend will know that 60 years ago Britain signed up to the European convention. [Interruption.] The shadow Justice Secretary is yelling again; he clearly needs telling again, so I will tell him again. Because Britain signed up to the European convention 60 years ago, it binds us legally. The Government must act in accordance with the law, as the previous Government accepted. The danger is that compensation payments will be awarded against us to prisoners. As I said earlier, the only thing worse than giving prisoners the vote would be giving them the vote and then having to give them compensation on top of that.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Before the Minister gets away with this nonsense that we did nothing—in fact, we held not one but two consultations on the issue—will he tell us on what occasion during those five years either he or any other member of his Front Bench, or Conservative Opposition Back Bencher, did anything other than call for us not to make any decisions about prisoner voting rights?

[Mr Harper]

The right hon. Gentleman has proved the point that I made: he says that the Government consulted on doing something but failed to do anything. Five years passed after the judgment, and the right hon. Gentleman and the Government of whom he was a senior member did nothing in terms of implementing the judgment.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

In the spirit of consensus, does the Minister agree that while there may be a case for allowing those who are guilty of the most minor offences to vote, it is clear that that cannot possibly apply to those who are guilty of the most serious offences?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman will know that Ministers are thinking about exactly how to implement the judgment, and are considering exactly the sort of issues that he has raised. When we have made our decisions, we will come and announce them to the House in the proper way.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I appreciate that this is a difficult and sensitive issue, and I know that many of my constituents will be shocked at the notion that murderers, rapists and child molesters should be given the vote, but can the Minister tell us more about how he will ensure that any attempt to determine whether people are given the vote on grounds of length of sentence or type of crime will be ECHR-compliant?

[Mr Harper]

In respect of what the hon. Lady said in the first part of her question, she is leaping ahead. Ministers are considering how to deal with the judgment in the Hirst case. I should also explain that one of the problems with the previous Government’s inaction is that if they had implemented the judgment based on the decision in the Hirst case, we might well have been in a stronger position. As she will know—I am sure she follows this issue closely—case law has moved on. Ministers are considering these issues and, as I have said, when we have taken the decisions we will come and announce them to the House.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

We in this place have a duty to represent the people who elect us and, almost to a man and woman, they will be saying, “No, no, no.” What is the point of having a sovereign Parliament if we have to bend down to the European Court on this? Surely we can help the Minister by having a vote and sending a strong message that we do not want this, and then he can go and negotiate it away.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend will know that we do have a sovereign Parliament but that about 60 years ago it signed up to the European convention on human rights and effectively made that part of our law and our legal obligations. The Government are following the judgment of the Court in implementing our legal obligations—nothing more and nothing less.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Armley jail in my constituency houses 1,128 prisoners, including 55 lifers. What assurance will the Minister give law-abiding citizens in Armley ward in Leeds West that their electorate will not increase by more than 1,000 and that their votes will not be diluted as a result of these changes?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Lady will know from what I said earlier that we are considering how to implement the Hirst judgment. When we have made those decisions we will announce them to the House, and she will be able to ask those specific questions at that time.

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I would like my hon. Friend to assure the House how he is going to make sure that rapists, murderers and paedophiles will not have the right to vote in my constituency of South Staffordshire, and across this country.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend can be reassured by what I said earlier, which was that pretty much every Member on the Government Benches, from the Prime Minister down, is unhappy about having to implement this judgment. We are going to have to do it, however, but he can take it from the fact that we are not very happy about having to do that, that when deciding on the judgments we need to reach and in bringing our proposals forward, we will take into account everything that he has said.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Two Durham prisons contain 1,700 prisoners, including Ian Huntley, the Soham murderer. In the Minister’s deliberations, will he consider excluding individuals such as Huntley from getting the vote in Durham? Will he also consider the fact that 1,700 prisoners getting the vote in a marginal seat such as City of Durham could sway the outcome of an election?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good point, of which the Government are well aware—and these are all exactly the sort of points that we are taking into account as we formulate our proposals.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Before the Government make their decision, will my hon. Friend and all his colleagues bear in mind that the ultimate expression of liberty is the right to vote, and that the principle is that it should be surrendered upon conviction and imprisonment?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend will know that that is exactly what our representation of the people legislation currently says, but that has been judged to be unlawful by the European Court, and the Government are in the position of having to implement that judgment—as were the previous Government. That is what we are wrestling with at the moment, and when we have made our decisions we will bring them before the House.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), will the Minister tell the House if the numbers of incarcerated prisoners in the UK will be used to help gerrymander the boundaries that the Government are proposing?

[Mr Harper]

I wondered how long it was going to take before we had the first rather ridiculous question, and it took about 20 minutes.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

In my 16 years at the criminal Bar, not one of my clients facing a custodial sentence has been upset at the prospect of losing his or her right to vote. Will the Minister please look with real care at the allegation that prisoners would receive huge sums in compensation? A report on the BBC says that the amount is some £700 per prisoner. If prisoners were to sue, I would urge the Government to take the view, “Bring it on.”

[Mr Harper]

If only my hon. Friend had represented everybody who is currently in prison, perhaps they would not be there today. Unfortunately, a significant number of prisoners have brought legal cases against the Government; there are more than 1,000 pending. Even though the amounts payable in individual cases may not seem very high, if such an amount was awarded to a significant number of prisoners the bill would run into millions of pounds of hard-earned taxpayers’ money.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It may be tempting—or otherwise—for the Minister to look behind him from time to time, but he must address the House.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

The Minister has my sympathy, because he is on a sticky wicket today—if I may say so, he is doing a good job—and the truth is that the Deputy Prime Minister is on the run. He should be there answering to this House today. His junior is doing a better job than he could, but he should be here. On a specific point, may I ask whether it is the Minister’s personal view that people should have the vote where they are interned, or that they should have the choice of which constituency to vote in?

[Mr Harper]

I will take the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question in the spirit in which it was intended. On the second part, we are of course considering how to implement the judgment. The sorts of issues that he has raised are ones that we are thinking about. When we have taken those decisions we will, of course, announce them to the House.

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

The shadow Secretary of State for Justice urged during his question that any legislation that comes forward should be subject to a free vote. I do not really care whether there is a free vote or not, because I shall vote against any such legislation.

[Mr Harper]

I did not detect a question in there, Mr Speaker, so I shall merely say to my hon. Friend that I do not think anybody on the Government Benches is particularly happy about having to deal with this issue, but we do have to implement the law.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Whatever the priorities of the European Court, it is the British Government who decide what the priorities are for this House of Commons. Most people will think it rather bizarre that they are giving priority to a Bill that might give the right to vote to Harry Roberts, who shot three Metropolitan policemen in cold blood, but are paying no attention to and putting no effort whatever into getting the 3.5 million decent citizens who are not on the electoral register on to that register.

[Mr Harper]

The right hon. Gentleman would know, if he followed proceedings in this House, that that is simply not true. I made a statement at this Dispatch Box in September, when I set out clearly that the Government were as committed to the completeness of the electoral register as to its accuracy. If there are, as there are, citizens missing from the electoral register, some of the responsibility for that falls on the Labour party, which was in power for 13 years and did nothing effective about it.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Does the Minister share my concern that the first response of so many Members here to a court judgment going against them is to refuse to accept the verdict of the court? What does that say about the rule of law? Does he also share my concern at the number of Members who do not understand the difference between the European convention on human rights, the Human Rights Act and the European Union?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman raised two points, and I shall deal with the second one first. I did spell out the difference very clearly earlier, because as soon as things are prefaced with the word “Europe” people do roll them all in together and think that they are the same thing. The European Court is separate from the European Union; they are nothing to do with each other, apart from the fact that they both happen to be based in Europe. On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, I think that the general view of those on the Government Benches is that we are not happy or pleased about having to implement the judgment, but we recognise that in a country bound by the rule of law, we have to do it.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Constituents of mine living near the new prison at Maghull will want to know which prisoners will be able to vote and which will not. So far the Minister has not answered the question, so I shall ask it in a slightly different way. In his personal view, who will be able to vote and who will not?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman read that out very well, if I may say so. He will know that the Minister does not have a personal view; the Minister is here to speak on behalf of the Government. I have already set out very clearly the Government’s view. The details about how we are going to implement the decision are still being considered—[Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Front Benchers groaning just because I have said it before. It is still true. We are considering how to implement the judgment. When we have taken those decisions, they will be announced in the House in the proper way.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Does the Minister recall that the House fully debated this issue and voted on it on 11 January 2006, at which point we on the Opposition Benches were trying to help the then Government to resolve a difficult situation? They took absolutely no action for the following five years. Will the Minister reassure the House that the Court objection is to the blanket ban on prisoners being able to vote and that it is within the power of the Government to resolve the situation by making a decision about which prisoners can vote and which cannot?

[Mr Harper]

If I may say so, I think that that was probably the first very sensible question that we have had in this session—

[Hon. Members]

Oh!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know that the House is in rather an excitable state, but I always enjoy listening to the Minister and I particularly want to listen to him now.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend listened to what I said in my statement. The blanket ban on sentenced prisoners voting has been ruled to be unlawful. The Government are considering how to implement the judgment to deal with that and, when the Government have made those decisions, the proposals will be brought before the House. Colleagues would do well to listen to how she put her question and to my answer.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The Minister’s answers are inadequate and not reassuring. My constituents who live in the Cheetham ward want to know whether the rapists, murderers and paedophiles—and burglars, for that matter—in Strangeways prison will have the vote or not. Surely he can answer such a simple question.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman was not listening carefully to what I said. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) pointed out, I said that the blanket ban on sentenced prisoners voting has been ruled to be unlawful and we are currently considering how to implement the judgment. We have made it clear that we are not particularly happy about it and we will bring forward our proposals and announce them in this House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will then be able to ask that specific question again and we will be able to answer it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must now move on. I know that there are disappointed colleagues, but I feel quite certain that this is a matter to which, in due course, the House will return.

Defence Treaties (France)

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

16:03

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to make a statement about the treaties today between the UK and France on defence.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)]

First, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Sapper William Blanchard from 101 (City of London) Engineer Regiment (Explosive Ordnance Disposal), who died on operations in Afghanistan on Saturday. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends at this dreadful time for them.

The Prime Minister and President Sarkozy this afternoon signed two treaties that mark a deepening of the UK-France bilateral relationship. The two treaties will next be laid before Parliament, allowing hon. Members the opportunity to consider them as part of the process towards ratification. For the added convenience of Members, I hope that the texts of both treaties will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses today.

The UK-France relationship is a strategic partnership of sovereign nations, working together to tackle the biggest challenges facing our two countries, at a new level of co-operation. The treaties do not diminish in any way our ability to act independently when the national interest requires, but they do provide us with greater capability when we decide to act together. The UK welcomed the recent French decision to rejoin NATO’s integrated military structure. We believe it is good for NATO, good for the UK and good for France. It makes sense for us now to achieve maximum interoperability, greater commonality of doctrine and more efficient use of equipment. Closer co-operation with France will also provide better value for money for the British taxpayer.

Let me give the House a sense of the scope of both treaties. First, the defence and security co-operation treaty will develop closer co-operation between our armed forces, the sharing and pooling of materials and equipment, the building of joint facilities, mutual access to each other’s defence markets, and industrial and technological co-operation. The treaty provides the framework, and details will emerge over time as more detailed work is done.

The second treaty covers collaboration in the technology associated with nuclear stockpile stewardship in support of our respective independent nuclear deterrent capabilities in full compliance with our international obligations. The treaty provides for the joint construction and operation of a new hydrodynamics facility at Valduc in France and a technology development centre at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston. These facilities will be operational from 2015. This programme, named Teutates, will assist both countries in maintaining the safety and reliability of their respective nuclear stockpiles and will improve expertise in countering nuclear terrorism. The facilities will enable each country to undertake hydrodynamic experiments in a secure environment. The hydrodynamic facilities use radiography to measure the performance of materials at extremes of temperature and pressure. This enables us to model the performance and safety of the nuclear weapons in our stockpile without undertaking nuclear explosive tests.

The UK will maintain its independent nuclear deterrent and will continue to work towards the long-term objective of a world without nuclear weapons. Today’s summit is only the start of a long-term deepening of the UK-France bilateral relationship. France is the UK’s natural partner in Europe for defence co-operation. France and the UK have some of the most capable and experienced armed forces and the largest defence industry. We are by a long way Europe’s two biggest defence spenders. Achieving the envisaged level of co-operation will take time and will require changes to long-established ways of working. We will put in place measures to deliver long-term commitment to joint projects and we expect to announce new areas of work at regular intervals.

A stronger defence relationship with France does not mean a weaker relationship with the United States, our main strategic partner, or with Germany or any other partner—quite the reverse. The increased capability and effectiveness that we will achieve through this co-operation will make us stronger partners. In the multilateral context also, our NATO allies and EU partners want UK and French forces, as well as those of other nations, to be as capable and interoperable as possible—exactly what the new Government programme of co-operation is intended to achieve.

[Mr Murphy]

The whole House joins the Secretary of State in offering condolences to the family of Sapper William Blanchard who died while showing remarkable bravery in serving our country. All our thoughts and many of our prayers are with his family and friends.

Today is historically important for our nation’s defence: our country is entering into two defence treaties with France. The treaties, which we are told will last for 50 years, cover aircraft carrier capability, shared nuclear infrastructure and joint rapid reaction capability. The UK media, the French media, the French National Assembly, and our allies in the United States and across world capitals have been informed of the contents of the agreement; with the announcements about this strategic shift in defence, it is a very real pity that the House of Commons seems to be the only place kept in the dark. After the summoning of the world’s media to Downing street to witness the signing of the agreements, I am sure that the Secretary of State does not mind being invited to Parliament to explain the Government’s thinking.

For almost 700 years, for historical reasons of the old alliance between Scotland and France, the House of Commons has traditionally had a degree of reticence about a Scot arguing for a military arrangement with France, but on this occasion most of us on both sides of the House support and welcome in principle further steps to improve what is already a very strong relationship. That approach makes sense for two strategic reasons. First, the UK and France face many common threats across the world, including global terrorism, cyber-security and piracy on the high seas. Secondly, as the Secretary of State has mentioned, the UK and France have unique capacities. They are the two largest investors in defence capability in Europe and among the highest in the world, significant players in the EU and the only two EU member states with permanent seats at the UN, as well as our independent nuclear deterrent.

In supporting this general approach of closer co-operation, I want to ask the Secretary of State some specific questions. I seek an absolute guarantee that the agreements that have been entered into today do not place any limitation whatever on the UK’s ability to act independently in all circumstances in the protection of our unique interests across the world, including the defence of our overseas territories and in respect of the deployment of our armed forces or our military assets.

Turning to the specific agreement on aircraft carriers, the Government’s intention is to share capacity when our respective carriers are in refit. The UK is currently building two Queen Elizabeth class carriers. As we understand it, one of our carriers will be placed in extended readiness. The question that many will be asking is what guarantees we have, when it is France’s responsibility to provide carrier capability, if we disagree.

We hope and expect that the UK and France will increasingly find common cause, but there is no guarantee that that will be the case in all circumstances over the next 50 years. Reflection on even the past few years shows that that was not the case on the Falklands, Desert Fox in 1998, Sierra Leone and of course the Iraq war. Can the Secretary of State give some assurances about guarantees of UK capability and support?

Are the treaties legally binding on both the United Kingdom and France? If they are, who adjudicates in the event of a dispute about legal purpose and meaning? The seven-sentence written ministerial statement that the Prime Minister tabled to the House today states:

“The treaties will be laid before Parliament in the usual way.”

May I invite the Secretary of State to say a little more, based on what he has already said, about how that will be handled?

In opposition, the Conservative party tabled motions to amend multilateral European treaties. In the light of that, is it the Government’s view that the treaty is amendable by Parliament now or in the future? In the light of the Government’s commitment to have five-yearly defence and security reviews, will it be necessary to update the treaties as the capabilities of the two nations are adjusted every five years?

I welcome what the Secretary of State said about nuclear co-operation. I welcome the commitment to bring greater efficiencies in infrastructure for our nuclear capabilities, but can the Secretary of State confirm to the House that that does not in any way jeopardise the bilateral arrangement between ourselves and the United States and the 1958 mutual defence agreement?

On employment, the Secretary of State spoke about access to markets. Will he say a few words about sovereign intellectual capability and employment as a consequence of today’s announcement? Will he guarantee, for example, that when the UK carrier goes in for a refit, that will take place in a UK shipyard? Has he been able to persuade the French that their carrier should go into a UK yard as well?

Finally—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the shadow Secretary of State. May I very gently say that the Secretary of State modestly exceeded his allotted time, and the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) has rather significantly exceeded his allocated time? [Interruption.] No, that is the end of it. In future we must stick to these times, otherwise it is grotesquely unfair on Back-Bench Members. The times are known. The times are communicated both to the Government and to the Opposition, and they must be followed. That is the end of it.

[Dr Fox]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. You may be the only person ever to have described me as modest in any way, shape or form.

I welcome the general tone of the shadow Defence Secretary’s remarks. There is much common ground. There are three reasons why we should support the general approach. There is the political approach, to bring France ever more closely into the heart of NATO which, as I think we all agree, is good for NATO, good for France and good for Britain; there is the military reason, for better interoperability and maximising our capability; and there is the economic case for getting value for money for both sets of taxpayers where that is possible. I can confirm to him that the treaty in no way provides any limitation on our ability to deploy forces when either nation believes that it is in its national interest to do so. We are trying to provide for better co-operation when we wish to act together in our mutual interest. Those are two very different concepts.

I shall not be able to get through all the specific points that the right hon. Gentleman made, but I shall write to him on any that, for reasons of time, I am unable to deal with. In terms of the carriers, the question of interoperability was key, and as he knows, when we came through the strategic defence review, the design of our carriers was changed to put in a catapult and trap system to give us better interoperability with our allies—not just France, but the United States. That would not have been possible, given the previous design, and that was a major consideration.

Clearly, if each nation operates a single carrier, when carriers are in for a major refit, a process that accounts for about three years out of every seven or eight, there will be an advantage in being able to train on carriers where we have much greater interoperability. There is also a chance of always having, for NATO purposes, one carrier free. Would that mean that we were able to force the French to do something against their will during that period, or vice versa? Of course it would not. We would hope that we would be able to act together, but there would be no means of coercing them to do so, and that is consistent with us behaving as sovereign, individual nations.

The ratification of the treaty will proceed in the normal way, and on nuclear co-operation, I was very grateful for the question about the 1958 agreement with the United States, which is key to the strength of our relationship. In my discussions with Secretary Gates, ahead of the defence review and afterwards, the agreement was one of the four elements about which the United States was most concerned. Our commitments under the 1958 treaty are in no way jeopardised, and the United States was fully consulted before and after the moves that we are discussing were made.

We must also remember that France itself co-operates very closely on nuclear issues with the United States. The United States, France and the United Kingdom form the nuclear capability of NATO, and, standing one step back, I must say that the fact that we are able to maintain the safety and predictability of our nuclear stockpiles without having to undertake nuclear tests is something for which the whole world should be grateful.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

As I am married to a French woman, I have some experience of the unpredictability of Anglo-French relations, so may I take the Secretary of State back to the run-up to the Iraq war, when President Bush and Mr Tony Blair were hellbent on invading Iraq but President Chirac took a different view—actually, the correct view? If, in the future, there are diversions in British and French policy on military or foreign policy matters, who then gets the helicopters and the fighters on to the aircraft carrier?

[Dr Fox]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. For a moment, I thought we were going to hear how “cordiale” in his private life the entente can actually be.

One of the big changes in French politics has been the emergence of President Sarkozy and the willingness of the French Government to put themselves at the heart of NATO.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Not for ever.

[Dr Fox]

But it is surely in the interests of the United Kingdom to welcome a trend that we have been calling for for a very long time. When we can draw the French into greater co-operation with NATO, where they are clearly in a much more transatlantic orbit, and are able to supplement and augment what the United Kingdom can do without interfering in our sovereign capability, we should welcome it. It is not a question, as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) suggests, of the joint ownership of fleets; it is about our willingness to operate them together when it is in our mutual interest to do so.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

I hugely welcome the signing of these two treaties, but, despite the presentational attempts, I am a little amused at a Conservative-led Government announcing what is a huge integration of European capability. This is not a zero-sum game, and we should not present it as one, but will the Secretary of State explain the balance between investment and cost in respect of the facilities in which there will be investment at Aldermaston and in France? Notwithstanding any desire to work together, we ought to be pretty hard-headed in our relationships with France. They most certainly will be on their side.

[Dr Fox]

The contracts are currently under discussion, and it is a matter of commercial sensitivity exactly what the numbers are. We do, however, believe that it would save very substantial millions for the United Kingdom to go ahead with the facility in France.

On the question of this being an integrationist measure—far from it, because we are able to understand the difference between geographical Europe and political Europe. What we want to see is a partnership with another sovereign nation on the European continent, not supranational control from the European Union.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

The Secretary of State will be aware from his frequent visits to Washington that there is a sense in the United States, particularly since the end of the cold war, that European nations have not been willing to do enough for their own defence. Are not these treaties, with the purpose of maximising joint capability, an effort to answer that criticism?

[Dr Fox]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a useful point. It is very clear that the United States wants Europe—by that, I mean geographical Europe—to do more for its own defence. Where we are able to operate with our biggest ally in Europe to provide greater capability and still provide value for money for our taxpayers, while all the time honouring our commitments to the United States, I cannot see that that is anything that people could object to.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

May I warmly welcome this entente militaire? If President Sarkozy is moving in the direction of America, it is good to see the Secretary of State moving in the direction of Europe. Does he recall that on 5 July I asked him about creating a common drone? I am glad to see that that is in the new agreement. May I ask that real efforts be put into creating a common drone industry between France and England? When we have our first Euro-drone, perhaps it could be baptised “The Flying Fox”.

[Dr Fox]

In the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman asks his question, I will not use the word “drone” in any pejorative sense in my reply. Suffice it to say that we do believe that looking at co-operation on unmanned air systems makes a great deal of sense. A finite amount of money will be available for research. Where we are able to carry out that sort of co-operation in our industrial base, and where we are not spending taxpayers’ money reinventing the wheel, as has so often happened in the past, in the United States as well as in Europe, it makes a great deal of sense to do so.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the arrangements will in no way affect our operational theatres of war, so that we will in no circumstances find that there is a conflict of any kind between orders that were given by our military or other services as compared to those of the French?

Secondly, if this Anglo-French arrangement—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced Member to whom I always listen with great interest, that one question is enough—he should not be greedy.

[Dr Fox]

My hon. Friend is correct.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful.

[Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The nuclear defence of our country is the most significant and important issue to hit the House of Commons, and it is a bit strange that this is an urgent question, not a statement.

Is my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State right when he says that we are both—France and the United Kingdom—nuclear powers, that we both have seats on the Security Council, and that the agreement will strengthen NATO, strengthen the European Union, strengthen our country, strengthen France and be in the national interest?

[Dr Fox]

I have great pleasure in agreeing with the hon. Gentleman on all those issues. This agreement does strengthen our position on the nuclear deterrent because it makes a considerable investment well into the future, enabling us to carry out the complex physics that are required for the safety of our nuclear stockpile.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about Britain preserving its freedom of action in this bilateral agreement. Will he confirm that this has nothing at all to do with the common foreign and security policy, under which we could well lose our freedom of action?

[Dr Fox]

The Government have been very clear, as we were throughout today’s statements by the Prime Minister and President Sarkozy, that this is an agreement by two sovereign nations agreeing to co-operate where it is in their mutual interest to do so, but totally retaining the capability to act separately where their respective national interests require it. Many of us feel much more comfortable with that model than the supranational idea of defence mediated by the bureaucrats of the European Union.

[Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

How can the House be assured that amidst co-operation on nuclear matters between us and both the French and Americans at the same time, our independent nuclear deterrent will remain independent for a very long time?

[Dr Fox]

For a long time there has been a French-American bilateral relationship and an Anglo-American bilateral relationship on the nuclear deterrent. As the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), will know, there has been discussion for some time about whether the relationship should be trilateral, given the cost of the programmes, but the decision has been taken that for the moment the double bilateral relationship will continue. We are strengthening the third, Anglo-French, part of that, because we believe it is in our interests to do so for reasons of both cost-effectiveness and our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister on bringing to birth this long-overdue arrangement. Can the Secretary of State confirm that co-operation on the ground between the British and French armed forces has been very long standing, and will he say something about the number of formations across the armed forces that will co-operate with their French counterparts?

[Dr Fox]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. He is entirely correct that there has been long-standing co-operation. Some of the things that I have read and heard today have made it sound as though this was the first time there had been any military co-operation at all between the United Kingdom and France. Beginning with joint exercising next year, we will examine ways in which we can organically take forward co-operation such as we have outlined today. There is no big bang—this is about working out how we can best improve the relationship incrementally and build confidence over a long period, given the complexities of Afghanistan and so on.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on the pro-European, very sensible measure that he has introduced. He mentioned introducing the treaties “in the normal way”. I presume that that is a reference to the Ponsonby rule, which we amended earlier this year. Will he therefore guarantee that, as provided for under that rule, there will be a debate and vote on the treaties in each House, so that we can scrutinise the details line by line?

[Dr Fox]

The Government business managers, in conjunction with the Opposition, will set out how the process will take place, but my personal choice would certainly be to ensure that both Houses have a full opportunity to debate these measures, not least because it would give them the chance to understand fully the benefits that they will bring the United Kingdom.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that earlier today, the Downing street spokesman described the agreements as being about “our strategic partnership” with France? Does he agree that a little modesty about them would be in order, and that we cannot have a strategic fusion with a country that has historically had, and still has, diametrically different strategic objectives on the world stage? We had better recognise the primacy of the relationship with the United States.

[Dr Fox]

Fortunately, it is still this country’s Secretaries of State, not Downing street spokesmen, who reply for the Government in the House of Commons. It is very important, however, that we understand the huge overlap with France in our strategic overview. My hon. Friend calls for greater modesty, but on the other hand we should not lack ambition.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Given that the Charles de Gaulle will be out of service for a minimum of 18 months, and that we have no Harriers left in our Fleet Air Arm, will the Secretary of State clarify who would defend the Falkland Islands if there were an unforeseen event?

[Dr Fox]

The defence of the Falklands depends on our ability to deter any aggression, and that is being done through the increased use of Typhoon aircraft, our increased air defences and the presence of hunter-killer submarines, which is quite sufficient. There are those who ask whether we have a plan to retake the Falkland Islands. No, no more than we have a plan to retake Kent, as we have no intention of losing them.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

As a former member of the Duke of Wellington’s Regiment—that noble Lord had some success in dealing with the French—may I ask the Secretary of State to reassure me that this is not a step towards a European army?

[Dr Fox]

One hundred per cent. Absolutely. This is not about increasing the defence capabilities of the European Union as an institution. I repeat—this is about two sovereign nations, which, between them, spend 50% of all the defence spending of the NATO members in Europe, and 65% of the research spending. It makes a great deal of sense for us to co-operate, but it is absolutely clear that this is about two sovereign nations that are willing to co-operate when it is in their mutual interest to do so, but keep their ability to act separately when their national interests require it.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

In the Scottish National party, we watch these treaties with France with great interest, echoing as they do, beyond the entente cordiale to 1295 and what became known as the Auld Alliance between Scotland and France. Again, that was about two sovereign nations being prepared for any belligerence from a neighbour. In the modern day, perhaps it is a glimpse of things to come when independent countries work together to keep their sovereignty. Although I hope to see the French in increasing numbers in the Hebrides range, is there any possibility that we might see the French air force providing Nimrod cover?

[Dr Fox]

We will be looking across the board at where we can co-operate. To hear those who claim to represent Scotland moving from the Auld Alliance to a pathetically anti-NATO posture is one of the saddest things in contemporary politics.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

As the Secretary of State has said, co-operation between France and Britain is nothing new. We have co-operated in the Gulf, Bosnia, Afghanistan and, I am pleased to hear, also in Louth and Horncastle. What is new is the decision by France to adopt a more transatlantic defence posture. Does he agree that that is welcome?

[Dr Fox]

Of course it is welcome. It is extremely good for France to have a more NATO-centric view and to be more Atlanticist. Such a position shows the stark contrast between President Sarkozy and some of his predecessors. It is something that this country has called for consistently, and now that we have it, we should welcome it. We should encourage France into an ever-stronger pro-NATO position.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State will know that the Americans being fully consulted on this measure is not the same as their agreeing to it. Will he say whether they believe that this will not damage our nuclear co-operation in future?

[Dr Fox]

I was personally involved in discussions with the United States on this issue. After we made some of the details available, there was no resistance from either the Administration or the military to this proposal. They were fully satisfied that it met the reservations that they might otherwise have had.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement today. Does he agree that this type of co-operation is a strategic model that is vital to Britain’s interests, given that the national security strategy identified global terrorism and cyber-security as the most pressing threats to Britain?

[Dr Fox]

We live in a world in which our national and overseas interests are likely to be threatened in more places and by more people than at any time in the past. It therefore makes sense for us to have as many levers as possible to deal with that—either through our membership of NATO or through active bilateral relations with those countries that could be strategic partners. On a number of occasions, the Foreign Secretary has set out where we should be looking to augment our international obligations and treaties with those elevated bilateral relations. Today, we have set out what is happening with France. Next week, I shall be attending a summit in Norway, where we will set out the areas where we perceive there could be greater co-operation with some of our Nordic partners.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I am as communautaire as the next man, and I recognise that this country has a long and successful history of military engagement with the French. Will the Secretary of State reassure the Greenford branch of the Royal British Legion and the Royal Naval Association that there will be no mixed-manning in the fleet as they are not enthusiastic about what they describe as “the prospect of garlic in the galley”?

[Dr Fox]

This is about our being able to co-operate, and not to integrate at the sort of level that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I make no comment about his own culinary tastes.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

The Secretary of State mentioned that the treaties would enhance our relationship with the United States. What assessment has he made of the willingness of the US to share intelligence information with us now that we have signed those treaties?

[Dr Fox]

This is nothing to do with our intelligence relationship with the United States; this is about practical military co-operation with our biggest continental ally.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

Do the treaties specify in what language the two sovereign nations will communicate when they work together?

[Dr Fox]

An element of some of the coverage today has been to ask what the language of war will be. In the last few years, we have had commanders of the international security assistance force in Afghanistan from Turkey, Germany, Canada, France and Italy, as well as the UK and the US, and we had no linguistic problem.

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

Could the Secretary of State give an indication of the value-for-money savings to be achieved over the 50-year life of the treaties, or if that is not possible, over the course of this Parliament?

[Dr Fox]

We will be looking in that context at some of the projects that we considered in the SDSR, such as A400M support and training. As I said in answer to a previous question, there is no point in us reinventing the wheel at taxpayers’ expense. Where we have common platforms, we should be looking at common support and training. We will also want to look at the future strategic tanker aircraft programme to see whether, within the private finance initiative set out and agreed by the previous Government, we can get better value for money for British taxpayers by having the French use some of that facility.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

When one carrier is in extended readiness and when the second is in for refit, is it true that we would have use of a French carrier only if the French were not using it themselves, and only if they agreed to let us use it for our purposes? Would we not be better combining with France to attack Brussels?

[Dr Fox]

The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) just said that we are all communautaire, but I suppose there has to be an exception to every rule. If both nations are operating a single carrier, there will be times when both carriers are available as part of our NATO obligations, and times when none is available unless we come to an arrangement that enables us to have a sensible refit policy that ensures that one is always available. That would not mean that either nation can force the other to do something it did not want to do, but it would increase the chance of having some capability as opposed to none.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement on better co-operation with France, which makes military and economic sense. Will he look at the fine print on opening our markets in procurement, because my knowledge of the French is that opening up markets is not their greatest strong point?

[Dr Fox]

When my hon. Friend gets a chance to look at the treaty, he will see that we were very keen to ensure that there is a genuine opening up of the defence market. A partnership is a partnership, and it must work in both directions.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

With Russian aircraft and submarines increasingly probing Britain’s airspace and sea approaches, is it envisaged that French air or naval assets will ever be involved in responding to and deflecting such activity?

[Dr Fox]

When it comes to the different elements of layered protection for our deterrent, we will use not only any UK assets available, but any of our allies’ assets that are available. We should remember that our nuclear deterrent is part of NATO’s nuclear posture, and therefore, NATO has a responsibility. It will help us as we would help it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to colleagues for considering this very serious matter in such a good-natured fashion.

Point of Order

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

16:38

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier this afternoon in Health questions, the Secretary of State either misled the House or made a serious mistake—I prefer to believe that it was the latter—when he told the House that I was wrong to say that the Government are breaking their promises on NHS funding. He said that even if the switch in extra funding to social care is excluded, the NHS budget will nevertheless increase in real terms over the next four years. However, the Nuffield Trust and the House of Commons Library both confirm that the budget will be cut. Can the House, through you, Mr Speaker, ensure that the Secretary of State corrects his statement this afternoon, at the earliest opportunity?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman is, no, not in the immediate term, because I sensed from what he said—and I listened very carefully—that that is a matter of political debate, and there will be argument about who is right or which facts trump others. I therefore cannot offer him the early prospect, or indeed any certain prospect, of a statement.

The right hon. Gentleman and I came into the House together in 1997, so I know him relatively well—he is a very experienced and wily campaigner. He has just put his own verdict on the Government’s position very forcefully on the record in prime time, and I have a feeling that he will share that verdict with others.

[John Healey]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is no further point of order to be made. The right hon. Gentleman has done very well out of me. He should be grateful and exultant. He should be saying thank you to me rather than looking for a second go.

If there are no further points of order, we will deal with the ten-minute rule motion, for which the Member concerned has been patiently waiting.

Cheques

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

16:40

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision to ensure that cheque facilities continue to be available to customers of financial institutions; and for connected purposes.

Something brings together the Federation of Small Businesses, Age Concern, Help the Aged, the union Unite, Which?, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, the Institute of Fundraising and, of course, more than 120 Members of Parliament who have signed an early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter). What do they all have in common? They all have major reservations about the scrapping of cheques.

That preferred method of payment is used by hundreds of thousands of people every single day. In fact, the total number of cheques written out each day is close to 4 million, or more than 1.3 billion a year. Despite this very clear message that cheques are still valued by the customers of the major banks and other payment service providers, last December the Payments Council agreed on their behalf to scrap cheques in 2018. That decision will, I believe, have major ramifications.

Some may ask, “What is the rush? 2018 is a long way away. Why do we have to take action now to head off the threat of cheque abolition in the future?” After all, we are led to believe that the final decision will not be made until 2016. However, if the Payments Council can set its own criteria and targets for scrapping cheques, it also has the power to try to make the abolition of cheques a foregone conclusion. Some will argue that this is simply a business decision to reduce costs, the benefits of which can then be passed on to customers. Well, this is hardly a shining example of the free market at its best, as what is in effect a cartel has collectively agreed to remove from the market a service, knowing that no individual bank can do anything to stop it.

This Bill is borne not out of nostalgia, but out of an acceptance of the present. The Bill does not attack the independence of businesses, but would protect the rights of their customers. The Bill would not condemn customers to an outdated method of carrying out financial transactions, but would give all those carrying out such transactions greater choice in how they do so in the future.

The truth is that setting an end date for cheques will inevitably accelerate the process by which businesses stop accepting cheques and individual banks stop issuing them, making the demise of the cheque a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Payments Council does not have much confidence in its ability to wring this particular chicken’s neck. It has forecast that, whatever it does and whatever we do—including if we are not successful in stopping this action—then even on the cheque’s deathbed in 2018, there will still be 2 million cheque transactions being made every day. Some chicken, some neck.

I have referred to my concerns about what I believe to be the major ramifications of cheque abolition, but I am here to voice the concerns of some of the groups that I have mentioned. The Federation of Small Businesses has strongly argued that the abolition of cheques will have a detrimental effect on smaller firms—not my words, but those of the FSB, which also says that many small businesses rely on cheques, which to them represent the most convenient system. They provide an excellent audit trail, are easy to reconcile and require minimal administration. Far from achieving our stated aim of decreasing the burden on small and medium-sized enterprises, switching away from cheques could increase it for some businesses.

Many clubs, charities and societies receive an overwhelming proportion of their donations in the form of cheques. While larger organisations have the facilities to process other means of payment, it is the small, local organisations, reliant on volunteers, that will suffer. Blind and partially sighted people are particularly reliant on cheques, as was made clear to the Treasury Select Committee. Members of the Royal National Institute of Blind People feel that cheques give them a greater sense of control. They can sign them and check the figures with a magnifying glass, whereas with chip and pin, it is almost impossible for them to read and check the amounts that they are paying.

However, by far the largest group of people who are most reliant on cheques are the elderly. That is partly out of habit and partly out of necessity. The elderly are also the group who will find it hardest to adopt alternatives. The Payments Council’s projections assume that there will never be a time when cash will be substituted for cheques, but the evidence from abroad does not support that. The fewer cheque transactions there are in a country, the more people will use cash and the greater the number of cash transactions there will be. Overall, my concern is that people will move back to cash and start keeping large volumes of money in the house, making them vulnerable to theft. That is not scaremongering; it is simply what will happen. The ability of elderly people to continue to manage their finances independently by using cheques is crucial, and particularly for older people who are housebound, whether it is about paying the paper bill or including a little something in a card to the grandkids. It is about financial independence.

Behind the Payments Council’s proposal is no doubt a belief that—I guess there is no delicate way of saying this—many of the existing elderly cheque users will not be around in 2018. However, the latest edition of Age UK’s political bulletin reveals that 64% of people aged 65 or over have never used the internet—and, let us face it, never will. Despite the inconvenience to the Payments Council, I wish all those who took part in Age UK’s research a long and happy cheque-using life.

So far I have focused on whether it is wise to remove the option of cheque use, but there is a further issue. Who should make the decision? We in this place may agree or disagree with the decision to scrap the cheque, but surely we can find common ground on the view that the decision is too important to be left to the Payments Council, which is essentially a trades association. Eight of its 28 members do not even offer current accounts and cheque books. Many are foreign-owned banks that do not offer current accounts and cheque books, while many are businesses based on alternative methods of payment, such as PayPal or Cash Zone. How on earth can the decision represent an independent and impartial view? Yet those businesses would still have a say in whether the UK should retain its centralised cheque clearing system. Can this be right? I think not.

The subject of my Bill is not a purely financial consideration; I believe that it is a matter of public interest. The consideration of the demise of the cheque should be made by a body that has the independence, the objectivity and the competence to balance the needs of consumers with the savings to the banks; but further, I would argue that any final decision should be made by a body accountable to Parliament. I urge hon. Members to support my Bill, which will bring cheque payments under the consumer protection remit of the Financial Services Authority or its subsequent body.

I am a new arrival in this House, so I am a late arrival to this worthy cause. I pay tribute to my colleagues, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), for providing a lead on this campaign before I arrived here, as well as right hon. and hon. Members of other parties who have supported this campaign in the past. I have joined a campaign that has increasing momentum, and I ask for the support of the whole House to allow us to take it to its next stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Mr David Ward, John Thurso, Lorely Burt, Stephen Williams, Dr John Pugh, Jim Dobbin, Tom Blenkinsop, Kelvin Hopkins, Dr Julian Lewis, Mr Greg Knight, Robert Halfon and Andrew Stephenson present the Bill.

Mr David Ward accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 June, and to be printed (Bill 101).

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: First Report from the Welsh Affairs Committee, The implications for Wales of the Government’s proposals for constitutional reform, HC 495; Third Report from the Political and constitutional Reform Committee, Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, HC 437, and oral evidence taken before the Committee on Thursday 15 July on the Coalition Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform, HC 358-i.]

[2nd Allocated Day]

Further consideration of Bill, as amended in the Committee

Clause 4

Combination of polls

16:52

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

I beg to move Government amendment 18, page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

‘(4) The polls for—

(a) the referendum,

(b) the general election of members of the Northern Ireland Assembly to be held on 5 May 2011, and

(c) the Northern Ireland local elections to be held on that date,

are to be taken together.’.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 19 and 44 to 46,

Amendment 222, in schedule 7, page 212, line 36, leave out from ‘combination’ to end of line 38 and insert

‘is to be the sole responsibility of the United Kingdom Government’.

Government amendments 47 to 179 and 22 to 43.

[Mr Harper]

These amendments update the combination provisions in the Bill to reflect the following draft orders, which were laid before Parliament by the Scotland and Northern Ireland Offices on 25 October: the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010; the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order 2010; and the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2010.

The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the combination rules in the Bill work effectively with the rules governing elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and local elections in Northern Ireland, in the event that the draft orders are approved by Parliament, as the Government hope. No amendments have been necessary in relation to the combination provisions for Wales. Although the rules governing elections to the National Assembly for Wales will be updated by the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) Order 2010, if approved by Parliament, none of the amendments to be made by this order affects any rules relevant to combination with the referendum. This order was also laid in draft before Parliament on 25 October.

The majority of the Government amendments make technical changes to the Bill to pick up minor consequential amendments that have emerged in relation to the numbering, cross-referencing and terminology following the laying of the draft territorial orders on 25 October.

Amendments 18 and 19 are consequential on the laying of the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2010, which fixes the date for the 2011 local elections in Northern Ireland. There is no intended change in the effect of the provision; rather, the amendment brings the wording of subsection (4) more into line with that of subsections (2) and (3), which is possible now that the date of the elections has been set.

Amendments 22 to 30 and 32 to 41 are not consequential on the draft territorial orders, but are technical changes to ensure that it is clear which set of postal voting provisions applies when polls are combined in Wales and in Scotland. The provisions in schedule 4 to the Bill will not apply, because, following our amendments in Committee, the same job is now done by the combination schedules. Amendment 43 corrects an omission in schedule 4 to the Bill about the marking of postal voters lists and proxy postal voters lists in Northern Ireland.

While the majority of the amendments are minor and technical, the key exceptions are amendment 172 and amendments 177 to 178, which, for the first time in the combination provisions, set out the details of the joint issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in Northern Ireland. The chief electoral officer, with the agreement of the chief counting officer, will be able to decide to take postal ballot proceedings together in the three polls taking place in Northern Ireland. These amendments make the necessary provision for that process to work. If the chief electoral officer decides to deal separately with postal ballot paper proceedings in the three polls, the existing legislation, as amended by the two Northern Ireland Orders, will apply, largely unaffected by the Bill.

The amendments give effect to our agreed policy that when the chief electoral officers decides, with the agreement of the chief counting officer, that the issuing and receipt of postal voting ballot packs is to be combined for the referendum and the relevant elections in Northern Ireland, he can ask the relevant registration officer to produce a combined postal voters list and combined proxy postal voters list. The amendments also make clear who is entitled to be present at proceedings on the joint issue and receipt of postal ballot papers. They provide for all the ballot papers to be sent out and returned in the same envelopes, and they set out the procedure for forwarding and retaining documents related to the joint postal voting process—for example, declarations of identity, the proxy postal voters list and the postal voters list.

The postal voting amendments for Northern Ireland also include the creation of two new forms of declaration of identity that can be used for Northern Ireland Assembly and local elections, when proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers are not combined. Equivalent forms already exist for England, Scotland and Wales.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

When people receive the envelope containing their postal vote, will they therefore need just one person to attest to their signature for all three votes, or will three separate witness signatures be required—one for each ballot paper?

[Mr Harper]

There are two stages to the process. If the chief electoral officer and the chief counting officer agree to combine the issue of the postal votes, which is a new procedure in Northern Ireland, everything will be sent out in the same envelope, and the same person will then be able to attest on the ballot paper. The whole point is to make the combination of the two elections and the referendum in Northern Ireland work as smoothly as possible. That is the most significant change in these combination provisions, and I hope that it will help the proceedings in Northern Ireland.

Amendments 156 and 157 include revised forms for the postal voting statement for the Scottish Parliament election, when the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers is not combined, and for the statement on the postal ballot papers that have been issued and received in Scotland for the referendum on the voting system. This takes into account the changes that were made to the forms for Scottish parliamentary elections by the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010.

The rules relating to the conduct of the elections next year are governed by the elections orders I have set out, and they will be debated in Parliament, following the usual procedures, in the near future. If Parliament agrees the orders, the relevant changes to the combination provisions enabling the referendum to be combined with them are in these amendments, which I shall ask the House to agree.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

Do the amendments take into account the possibility of the Scottish parliamentary general election next year not being held on Thursday 5 May?

[Mr Harper]

If that election were not held on the same day, we would not be combining the referendum with the Scottish Parliament election. The combination provisions will be required if the elections take place on the scheduled day and if the referendum is also held on that day. The elections can then be combined so that they are more efficiently run and provide a considerable cost saving to the taxpayer.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The Bill provides for the polls for the referendum and the Scottish Parliament general election of 2011 to be taken together. If, under the Scotland Act 1998, the Scottish Parliament election were to be held in March next year, would the referendum in Scotland be held in March as well?

[Mr Harper]

The provisions enable the referendum to be combined with the election, if they are taking place on the same day. Given that they are scheduled to take place on the same day, the provision is clearly sensible. If an eventuality arose under the Scotland Act causing the Scottish parliamentary elections not to be held on that day, the two would not be combined. The Bill does not change those provisions in any way. Indeed, the conduct of the elections is to be determined by the elections orders, which this House and the other place will debate in due course. These provisions are about how to combine the referendum with the conduct of those elections. I hope that that is clear.

17:00

There is one non-Government amendment in the group —amendment 222—and it might help if I say a few words about it. It is proposed by the nationalist parties and was tabled by the hon. Members for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) and for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). It would require the UK Government to pay for the cost of combining the referendum and the Scottish parliamentary election on 5 May. We do not consider that necessary because the UK Government are already responsible for funding both polls. Funding for the referendum and the Scottish parliamentary elections already comes out of the Consolidated Fund and is borne by the UK taxpayer. Combining the polls also makes sense, because potential savings of £30 million may be shared between the referendum and the other poll. I will listen very carefully to the arguments of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, but having looked at the amendment with great care I am so far unconvinced of its necessity. I urge the House to accept the Government amendments.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I notice that the instructions set out in amendment 156 ask voters to complete the ballot paper and form “in black ink”. Is the same instruction in the original Bill, and by building this provision directly into the Bill would we invalidate the ballot papers or forms of voters who chose to use another colour of ink?

[Mr Harper]

The proposed forms are set out in the Bill, but some changes are necessary to reflect the changes in the election orders. I have the provision in front of me, and it says:

“Please write clearly in black ink.”

We had this debate earlier and I have said that if a clear intention has been set out by the voter, the returning officer—or, in the case of the referendum, the counting officer—will allow the vote. The view is usually taken that voters should be included rather than excluded. Clearly, the instruction is intended to make it as easy as possible to read the votes.

[Kevin Brennan]

I appreciate that. The Minister might be able to elucidate later whether the requirement for black ink was part of the original instruction. My fear is that when something is written directly on the face of a Bill, it is sometimes open to a more literal interpretation than the Minister has indicated would be the normal practice. If not now, perhaps he could clarify the point later.

[Mr Harper]

All the forms for elections are usually set out in secondary legislation, but we have set them out in primary legislation. The legal effect, however, would not be different. Another provision we adopted earlier to make the forms more understandable and accessible to disabled people was to allow the Electoral Commission to vary not the ballot paper, but the forms, to make them easier to use. If the Electoral Commission felt at a later stage that any of the forms were difficult for people to use, it would be able to amend them. As I said, however, that does not apply to the ballot paper.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee. Has he any comments on the concerns that were expressed about the possible coincidence of the alternative vote referendum and the Welsh Assembly and parliamentary elections, given that some people might choose to have a postal vote for only one of those? Officials feared that that would generate horrendous administrative problems that would undermine the democratic process on the day.

[Mr Harper]

I do remember giving evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee and I enjoyed it tremendously. I was sorry only that the experience was too short.

I do not remember whether the hon. Gentleman was present when we debated the postal vote provisions in Committee, but the Government decided that the most sensible arrangement would be for standing postal vote provisions for a United Kingdom parliamentary election to kick in automatically for the referendum, but for that not to apply to people with postal vote provisions for a different election.

When voters receive their polling card, it will helpfully set out for them the elections and the referendum to which their voting entitlement applies—that will deal with the circumstances in which there are different franchises—and will also make clear how their postal vote has been set up. They may not have one set up for the referendum, for instance, but they may have one set up for a local election. That will enable them to take action at that stage and, if they prefer to vote by post, ensure that they can do so in the elections and the referendum.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Form 4, which appears on page 245 of the Bill, results from an amendment that the Minister tabled to the original Bill. There is now a new form, which appears in amendment 156. Why did the Minister not simply table amendment 156 in the first place, given that the forms are very different?

[Mr Harper]

As I said earlier, the changes that we have tabled today to the combination provisions reflect the changes in the conduct of the election orders that were laid before the House. We wanted to ensure that it was as easy as possible to combine the polls, and that the instructions given to voters for the referendum and the elections were aligned with each other. The original amendments and combination provisions were based on the law as it was before the territorial orders had been laid. I think that that is quite straightforward.

[Chris Bryant]

Obviously I understand the process—as I am sure the Minister has foreseen, it is one of the matters on which I shall express my disagreement with him—but the requirement for people to write in black ink, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), is not included in the form that appears in the amended version of the Bill, but is included in the form that appears in the amendment. Why was that change made?

[Mr Harper]

I will not write to the hon. Gentleman—

[Chris Bryant]

In black ink?

[Mr Harper]

In black ink or any other colour. Instead I hope that I shall be able to elucidate the position for both hon. Gentlemen at the end of the debate.

[Kevin Brennan]

I do not want to push the point too far, but it is a serious point. Normally, people are issued with a pencil at polling stations. Given that, as the Minister has confirmed, the “black ink” instruction did not appear in the original version, I am intrigued that it has suddenly found its way into this version. Will people be required, or instructed, to use black ink at polling stations? I fear that that could lead to unnecessary confusion: that is the only point I am making.

[Mr Harper]

It is a very helpful point, and I will respond to it at the end of the debate.

Without any further ado, I urge the House to support the amendments in due course.

[Chris Bryant]

Let me deal first with the process. The Minister referred to statutory instruments. All the amendments we are discussing, bar the one tabled by members of the Scottish National party, were tabled by the Government, and they cover some 28 pages of the amendment paper. They were not tabled because the House demanded amendments, or because the Government said in Committee that they would consider probing amendments and return with further amendments on Report. They have been introduced because the Government have gone through a process of putting various carts and horses in the wrong order. I fully recognise that I am not as versed in country ways as the Minister, who represents the Forest of Dean, but I recognise when parliamentary procedure is being put in the wrong order, and it would have made far more sense to have proceeded with pre-legislative scrutiny and proper consultation with the devolved Administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and then to have proposed legislation in draft form. We should bear it in mind that not a single devolved Administration wants a combination of polls next May, but if the Government’s view is nevertheless that they wish to push forward with that, against the wishes of the three devolved Administrations, they can then introduce statutory instruments to make provision under the Scotland Act 1998, the two Wales Acts of 2000 and 2006 and the Northern Ireland provisions. They would do that first, and the proposals would then be considered in this House and the House of Lords and, if agreed to, the Government would introduce the final version of their Bill. Instead, because the Government are running at an inappropriately fast pace for this kind of legislation, there has been no consultation whatever with any of the devolved Administrations—with either the Assemblies or the Parliament or the Executives or Governments in each of those nations.

There has been no process of consultation on the Bill, but there has also been no process of consultation on the orders. The Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010 is some 205 pages long; it is not a minor tome. It includes measures on election expenses, disputed claims, corruption, entreating, the control of donations to candidates, the appointment of election agents, the requirement of secrecy, the breach of official duty, tampering with nomination papers, and personation and other voting offences. I am sure the Government will say that this entire matter is a reserved responsibility and that it is for the Westminster Government to decide, but it would have showed greater respect for the devolved Administrations if they had consulted them before the orders were laid.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

On the consultation issue, I know from experience that regular meetings used to take place, and presumably still do, between the First Minister in Wales and the Secretary of State for Wales, and I guess that the situation in Scotland is the same. The meetings take place frequently—sometimes once a week, or even more—so there is no reason why there cannot be dialogue and consultation at a relatively early stage. Can my hon. Friend explain why even the most basic communication has not taken place?

[Chris Bryant]

I cannot give any explanation for that. All I know in relation to the Secretary of State for Wales is that, with regard to another matter, I asked on the Floor of the House in June for a meeting with her on a cross-party basis and she said she was quite happy to have one as soon as possible. The first date that was provided was this afternoon. The Secretary of State did not turn up and her officials had booked the wrong room. It is therefore quite possible that if any consultation on the matter under discussion had been planned, it would not have actually taken place.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that nowhere will he find a requirement that a discussion should be held if the boundaries in Scotland have to change—yet again? There should also have been a discussion with MSPs about the Scottish boundaries, and about local authority areas. That would have made more sense in terms of our working together and coming up with a solution that is not a patchwork quilt.

[Chris Bryant]

Or, indeed, just a muddle. One of the things that Welsh Members have been trying to say during the discussion of this Bill is that on the combination of polls, lessons need to be learned from the situation in Scotland, where the boundaries for MSPs are no longer coterminous with those of Members of Parliament. In addition, in Scotland but not in England or in Wales, wards are being split between constituencies because of the local government arrangements that have been made as a result of large single transferable vote wards.

17:15

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend, like many others on the Opposition Benches, will have sat through proceedings on large Bills with a huge number of clauses and schedules. When a lot of late amendments are tabled, that is, in general, a tribute to the civil service, who are working through the night and burning the midnight oil to draft them. However, we have come to recognise that it is also a symptom—not unique to this Bill—of legislation that is not ready. My concern, which I hope is also the concern of those in the other place, is that this may not be the last we will see of batches and pages upon pages of amendments. I hope that those in the other place will act on that concern, because this is rushed legislation.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend, and near neighbour, is absolutely right about that. Interestingly, the Scottish Executive have made direct representations to the Secretary of State for Scotland about the statutory instruments, as has the convener of the Local Government and Communities Committee in the Scottish Parliament. So it was a bit disappointing to see the reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland , which said:

“I would however like to personally reassure you that Scotland Office officials are working closely with the Cabinet Office; the Electoral Commission; the Interim Electoral Management Board for Scotland; and electoral administrators to ensure that both the referendum and the Scottish Parliament election will run smoothly on 5 May next year.”

I do not think that that represents the respect agenda originally referred to by the Prime Minister, and it does not really represent new politics either. I fully understand that the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) and for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) complained bitterly about the way in which we introduced legislation, but introducing it in a way that does not allow amendments to be properly considered in a timely fashion or in the proper order is a ludicrous way of doing business.

[Kevin Brennan]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way, but I am keen to move on.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend knows it is unwise not to give way to me, because it might end up in a point of order. I have described this Bill as a Wallace and Gromit Bill because of the way in which, rather like Gromit in “The Wrong Trousers”, the Government are laying down the track as they go along. Indeed it is worse than that, because this group of amendments is consequential on a set of statutory instruments that this House has not yet even considered. If that is not getting things back to front, I do not know what is.

[Chris Bryant]

I do recall my hon. Friend raising the matter of “The Wrong Trousers” and Wallace and Gromit, but I think his metaphor does not work in this case. Gromit was laying down pieces of track ahead of him, whereas the Government are laying down pieces of track behind them—pieces of track that they have not been over; this is putting the horse before the cart before the horse before the cart. There is a real problem in the process that the Government have adopted, and I very much hope that their lordships will want to examine it carefully.

What is also wrong is that because the Government have tabled 28 pages of amendments that we have to debate on Report, they have had to set aside a chunk of time for us to do so. That has been done not because the House wanted it, or to bring about greater consensus on the Bill, but to meet the Government’s own business needs, and as a result of their own haste. The fact that we have not had a single moment’s debate about the decoupling of seats in the Welsh Assembly and their coterminosity with Westminster seats is a disgrace. If, as we had requested, a knife had not been put in yesterday night’s proceedings, it would have been possible for us to have debated that matter now, rather than the measures that we have to debate at this point.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree when a clause is specific to a constituent part of the United Kingdom, there should be allotted time to debate that clause?

[Chris Bryant]

I am afraid that I sort of disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is important that there should be time to debate such a clause. We tabled an amendment yesterday that a clause should be deleted from the Bill, just so that we could have that debate. On Report there is no other way of having that debate—but I am not sure that it is always right to put in knives, because that leads to some complexities in the management of time. That is why we argued that we should not have knives.

[Mr Harper]

While the hon. Gentleman is replying to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), will he explain something to the House? It is true that we did not get to the debate on the decoupling provisions, but he will know that the provisions to decouple the Welsh Assembly constituencies from the Westminster ones are supported by the First Minister of Wales. The First Minister has written to the Secretary of State to state that in terms, so it is surprising that the Labour party in Westminster is taking a different position from the Labour party in Wales.

[Chris Bryant]

It is surprising that a Government that consists of Conservatives and Liberals is taking a view on the number of seats in Parliament that is different from what was in both parties’ manifestos at the general election. The point is that we should have had time to debate these matters, and we have not had a single moment to debate them. I would merely say that I hope that their lordships will take the opportunity to debate the matters that it has not been possible for us to reach.

Let me swiftly deal with some of the amendments. The Minister is absolutely right that the vast majority of the amendments are relatively technical. However, that does not mean that we should be able to agree them today, because we have not agreed any of the statutory instruments on which they depend—he said “if” the statutory instruments are approved by Parliament. There is an enormous presumption in tabling amendments to meet a piece of legislation that has not yet been agreed. That treats this House with a degree of disrespect that is inappropriate.

Amendment 222, tabled by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), is about the costs of running the polls being met by the UK Government. The Minister is right to say that the costs are all met by the Consolidated Fund, but I presume that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment has been tabled to make the point that he thinks that the responsibility for running the Scottish parliamentary elections should be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament—[Interruption.] He is not nodding; he is looking inscrutable at the moment. That is unusual for him, because he is normally extremely scrutable. Perhaps we will have to wait for his contribution to the debate.

The vast majority of these amendments make changes such as substituting “2010” for “2007”, because of the different statutory instrument that would be referred to. Although I suppose it would in theory be possible for us to vote on all of them, because we think that it would be inappropriate to decide on them until the statutory instruments have been decided on, we will none the less want to press at least one to a vote simply to make the point that the process has not been sensible.

Government amendment 78, however, refers to the abandonment of a poll in Scotland. When the Minister sums up, will he explain precisely why he has moved in that direction? The amendment relates to line 3 of page 226, in schedule 7. The Minister also referred to Government amendment 177, which is, as he says, a quite substantial amendment. It runs to several pages and concerns Northern Ireland. It runs from page 1047 of the amendment paper onwards. Proposed new paragraph 40(2) states:

“The following provisions have effect as if the persons listed in them included persons who would be entitled to be present at the proceedings on the issue or receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum or a relevant election if those proceedings were taken on their own.”

I wonder why the Minister has chosen that precise wording. Likewise, paragraph 42(2) states:

“Otherwise, the provisions listed in sub-paragraph (3) have effect as if the words before ‘the colour’ were omitted.”

It may be that I am very dim, but I simply do not understand that provision in relation to Northern Ireland; it will be for the House’s convenience if the Minister explains it.

Similarly, paragraph 44, on spoilt postal ballot papers—again in relation to Northern Ireland—states at sub-paragraph (2):

“The spoilt postal ballot paper may not be replaced unless all the postal ballot papers issued to the person are returned.”

I do not understand why, if a voter has been given three ballot papers and has spoilt only one of them and therefore wants a replacement only for that one, they have to return the other two as well. Will the Government explain that? I ask about this because some people believe we should make postal balloting more difficult.

In Northern Ireland there has been a tradition of separate rules and regulations for postal voting, because of concerns about corruption. In case the Government are considering substantially restricting the use of postal voting in England and Wales, I must tell the Minister that the current provisions have made it far easier for a large number of my voters to vote in any election. Previously, people had to get a member of the medical profession to sign them off as ill to get a postal ballot. In many cases, my voters were charged £6 a head for the right to vote in an election by post, which I think is completely wrong. Of course we want to ensure that there is no opportunity for corruption in the use of postal ballots, but my experience is that many elderly and other people, particularly those who cannot predict the precise timing of their work commitments, value the current provisions on postal voting.

Finally, I am deeply grateful to the Minister for sending me an e-mail today about the definition of newspapers and periodicals, but unfortunately the parliamentary system would not let me open the attachment, so I do not have the faintest idea what it says. I would be grateful if he could find some means of letting me know what he was trying to communicate.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I hear about amendments that are probing, wrecking and reasoned, but amendment 222, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), is simply protesting. It is protesting about what could have been achieved with a lot less resistance had the Government been reasonable and not tried to usurp Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland’s day of democracy—a day that was set in stone, in legislation anyway, 12 years ago.

The Deputy Prime Minister has stuck his neck out on this—indeed, I wonder whether he is prepared for the consequences as it will be his neck on the block if things go wrong—and the Government have proceeded at breakneck speed, disregarding people’s feelings and beliefs as well as the important issues that will arise in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales next May. That is not a slight against the two Ministers present—the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons—who have been handling a very sticky wicket quite well indeed.

No time has been taken to consult the devolved Governments on the Bill. However, that was also a mistake of the Labour party in government when it delivered devolution to Scotland and Wales almost in direct correlation to the strengths of the nationalist parties in those countries. [Hon. Members: “Rubbish!”] That is not rubbish: it is absolutely right. We in Scotland got our Parliament because the Scottish National party is stronger than Plaid Cymru, which is why Wales got an Assembly. I often wonder why Scotland does not have even the powers of the Isle of Man—population 100,000.

In the past several weeks we have had five days to discuss the Bill in Committee. When the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was not speaking, we even had some time to get the odd word in before the guillotine. The debate was cut off at important points and some very interesting and reasonable amendments were put on to the waste heap of parliamentary time. One of the most interesting amendments came from the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who tried to ensure that all the Bill’s measures, not only those on the voting system but those on the changes to boundaries and the number of Members, would have depended on gaining a positive result in the referendum.

17:30

Members who ran through the Lobby in haste, dismissing the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), will repent at leisure when they live in a world where boundaries are redrawn every five years, rather than every 10, as the amendment proposed. Perhaps more thought should have been given to that, and might yet be given in another place.

To me, the most important point is the date and the gate-crashing of another election. It is not that the people cannot cope; it is the media that will not cope. We saw how they managed to mangle the general election into a presidential election, with one winner, we were told, and then that turned out to be wrong.

Important issues that matter to the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will have to play second fiddle in a one-dimensional media. People should be allowed to have a day and a debate focused on the messages that will affect their daily lives for four years, not a media hullabaloo about a voting system used once every five years. We fear that we have seen what the Government truly mean by the respect agenda.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman just slipped in, I hope, a reference to a voting system that will be used only every five years. I hope he will not support a five-year fixed-term Parliament, and that I might be able to entice him towards a four-year fixed-term Parliament, which would be a means of guaranteeing that the UK general election did not fall on the same day as a Scottish or a Welsh general election.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The salient point is not whether the election takes place every four years, five years, three years or whatever, but that the referendum coming up next May is usurping the day of democracy and affecting issues over four years. The Minister said that the UK will be solely responsible for the costs, which implies that the amendment has, in effect, been accepted. I welcome that.

When the referendum comes around, I cannot see parties such as the Scottish National party campaigning very strongly for or against. We will have more important things to do. I would encourage the Liberal Democrats to campaign on the referendum, because we will then go and hoover up their seats. A massive mistake is being made by holding that poll on the same day as the elections in Scotland. That is why I am making the protest, and I hope it is being heard. I do not know what will happen in another place, but it should change the provision.

Gate-crashing Scotland’s day of democracy shows a lack of respect on the part of the Government. They say that they would have respected the devolved Administrations, but when pressed they tell us that the opinions of the governing parties of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not matter—a case of words and actions diverging greatly.

The Government need our input. They need all our voices. We need to present issues to the Government and make sure that they do the right thing.

[Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)]

Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. We have heard much from the Opposition Benches about respect for the devolution settlement. This is an issue reserved to the Westminster Parliament, so the question of extensive consultation does not arise. This is a Westminster issue for the Westminster Parliament under our settlement.

[Mr MacNeil]

That is why respect is important. The day has been set in legislation for the Scottish Parliament for more than a decade. All of a sudden, somebody wanders in, gate-crashes the party and takes the media caravan on to the lawn. Hon. Members cannot imagine that people in Scotland will not be upset or annoyed that that is happening.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a disgrace that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government were not consulted? To compound that disgrace, the Government claim that they would pay no attention even if the Scottish Parliament passed a motion in this regard.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Lady is right. I wish that the status that the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Northern Ireland Government should have were enshrined in legislation.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for speaking to the amendment. On the respect agenda, can he explain to me, because I do not understand, why the UK Government are against holding a referendum on further powers for Wales on the same day as the Welsh Assembly elections, yet are in favour of the referendum on AV? Obviously the referendum on further powers is far more relevant in terms of the Welsh Assembly elections.

[Mr MacNeil]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, because that is an example of a lack of joined-up thinking, and, if the Government were to undertake this process again, they would not start from here, as it were. They find themselves where they are and have to employ the best arguments, regardless of how sticky the wicket might be.

This Bill, like the spending cuts, has moved fast, and had some respect been shown, we might have supported it to a far greater extent than we have been able to. I shall not push my amendment to a vote, because I am sure that the Government have heard my point. Indeed, I think that the Minister has confirmed that the relevant costs will be the sole responsibility of the UK Government, and that makes me very pleased. However, it is my sincere hope that, until Scotland gains its independence, the Government will give us the respect that we truly deserve—the respect that was shown today to France and on other days to Norway.

[Mr Dodds]

On the respect agenda, and further to the intervention by the hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe), there is a question not just about interfering with the date of the elections in the devolved regions, but about the changes to the boundaries in Northern Ireland. They will have a direct impact on the boundaries of Assembly constituencies, on which we were not consulted at all. This legislation has a direct impact on the Northern Ireland Assembly and its membership. It is not just a question of the date; the legislation has a direct impact on Northern Ireland, and for that reason there should have been consultation.

[Mr MacNeil]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point for the north of Ireland.

[Mr Dodds]

Northern Ireland.

[Mr MacNeil]

Northern Ireland. I did notice that the right hon. Gentleman said the regions of the UK—

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

You can say “north of Ireland” to me!

[Mr MacNeil]

I’ve got the north to my left; I’ve got Northern Ireland to my right. I’m stuck in the middle with you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Dodds]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr MacNeil]

I am happy to give way, my goodness!

[Mr Dodds]

In my case, I have the law on my side.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr MacNeil]

Moving swiftly on to Wales!

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Well, not to Wales, but to a UK parliamentarian. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the interesting intervention by the hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe), which was—I am not being patronising in any way—very well meaning, shows the difference in understanding on the part of those who are in the devolved nations and have a Parliament or an Assembly about how respect cuts both ways? Although we did not always get it right in government, we certainly tried as Ministers to ensure that there was full dialogue and consultation even if we disagreed with the issue. If this Government should learn one thing from this debacle, it is that from now on they need to consult the devolved institutions properly.

[Mr MacNeil]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He makes a very good point and leads me to reflect that perhaps I was a bit harsh on the hon. Lady. Perhaps there is simply a lack of understanding, rather than a lack of respect. If we think back, we find that yesterday was really—I think that I can safely use this term—“all-points Celtic”. It was Cornwall. It was Wales. It was Northern Ireland?

[Mr Dodds]

Celtic?

[Mr MacNeil]

My “all-points Celtic” is checking out. It was also Scotland. It was a Celtic issue, and it hit across the nations and a region of the UK—he says, looking around him! However, there are very serious and important points here, and I hope that the Government will listen. At this late stage, it is not too late.

[Kevin Brennan]

It might not have been entirely inappropriate for the hon. Lady to intervene, because, as I recall from my visit to Corby as a young man, most of it was populated by Scots and Welsh people, who were there to set up the steelworks at the time.

On the date and the combination of polls, however, is it not also an own goal on behalf of the Government and, particularly, the Deputy Prime Minister? He is demotivating those electoral reformers among us who would have been prepared to go out alongside colleagues from other political parties to campaign for the alternative vote. We will now campaign with our parties to help our Welsh Assembly colleagues get elected, and not devote the energy that we otherwise would have done to the Deputy Prime Minister’s cause?

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman is bang on. The Deputy Prime Minister, not content with having some opposition to his aspirations for a change in the voting system, has moved on to look for even more opponents to changes in the voting system, and he has succeeded in that end, because he has absolutely demotivated those people who will have greater priorities when the day comes in May. Their priority will not be the voting system for elections to the UK Parliament, and that is where the mistake lies.

Again, I ask the Minister to speak to his friends in the other place, because that might make quite a difference. Of course, there are those who might feel that there are elements within the governing coalition who are happy to see a demotivated support force for a change in the voting system. I will leave that question hanging.

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I am very surprised by the technical amendments that the Government have introduced. I have previously brought to the House’s attention the fact that, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), I am currently still a Member of the Scottish Parliament. In the light of this debate, that is a very useful experience to bring to it. For eight of my 10 years in the Scottish Parliament, I was a Minister, and I introduced a considerable amount of legislation. In my experience, if you had to table such a range of amendments, it meant one of two things: first, that something had gone very badly wrong with your legislation organisationally and it needed immediate rectification, perhaps at crisis level; or secondly, that you were wrong in the fundamentals and having to try to address that fact and clean up the mess.

[Mr MacNeil]

May I mischievously ask the hon. Lady if that ever happened to her?

[Margaret Curran]

At the risk of being incorrect on the record, I would like to think that, no, it did not happen to me, and that I was very clear about my legislation.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I also mischievously ask my hon. Friend whether, in her experience, it has happened to Ministers in the past three and a half years?

[Margaret Curran]

I would have to say that the current Administration do not quite have my record and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, who was also a Minister.

It is deeply disappointing that the only way I see this Government engaging with Members of the Scottish Parliament on matters that fundamentally concern them is here in this Chamber. The only way that this Government and this House are going to understand the experience of the Scottish Parliament is by having MSPs in the Chamber. That is deeply disappointing and speaks to the respect agenda.

I am obliged to indicate to the House the widespread concern that exists throughout Scotland, across the political spectrum, about what this Government have done. I sincerely hope that we do not get the tired old argument that somehow we are suggesting that the Scottish people are not up to making two decisions at a time or understanding what is in front of them. That entirely misses the point and entirely misunderstands opinion in Scotland.

The core of this proposal, as seen across the political spectrum in Scotland, is that you are downplaying the significance of the Scottish Parliament elections. You are detracting from it, undermining it, and failing to appreciate how important it is. I would have to say that the Tories have a better record on this, but I will leave others to draw their own conclusions. It is fair to say that across Scotland we believe that you do not recognise the authority and status of the Scottish Parliament. That is what is at risk in these proposals and what is so worrying about them.

Worst of all is the fact that there was no consultation or engagement with Members of the Scottish Parliament or members of the body politic in Scotland. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it has the hallmark of arrogance about it. You significantly altered the arrangements for the Scottish Parliament elections, significantly altered the context in which a debate will be held in which we discuss matters of great significance to the Scottish people, and did so without a word of reference to the institution itself. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has pointed out many times, there are many means and mechanisms established to have proper discussions between Governments, and the fact that you neglected to use any of them speaks ill of—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady in mid-flow, but she is not correct. She is addressing me in the Chair, not the Minister, so when she uses the word “you” she is accusing me as the Chair. I ask her to bear that in mind and address me directly. As far as I am aware, I have not done any of these things at all, as a Minister or anything else.

[Margaret Curran]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that correction. I had to be corrected several times in the Scottish Parliament for the same mistake, so I am clearly a very slow learner. I apologise.

Perhaps I could be so bold as to refer to the two Ministers on the Front Bench. One, I think, will remember what the last Tory Government did to Scotland; the other I am not too sure about. That Government imposed the poll tax on Scotland a year ahead of the rest of the UK. I can tell you that Scottish opinion was deeply offended, and we tried to tell the UK Government, “Don’t do this to Scotland, because we think you’re maltreating us.” The rest of the UK seemed not to listen and dismissed that, and to this day Scottish people are offended by how the UK Government behaved. I am telling you, you are in danger of making the same mistake—[Interruption.] I tell the Minister that the Government are in danger of making the same mistake again.

17:45

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Lady mentions the 1980s, the poll tax and Thatcherism. Would she not have preferred to have had an independent Scotland, and not had Margaret Thatcher and the poll tax?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. This is getting a little out of hand. Can we come back to the amendments? I am sure that is what the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) is going to do.

[Margaret Curran]

I am indeed. I was simply drawing a parallel of the last Tory Government, which occurs to many Scots, between this Government’s approach and the behaviour .

The Bill’s provisions will cut across, and distract attention from, the very important Scottish Parliament election to be held next year. It is clear that they were produced in haste, with no consultation. There has been no persuasion in the Government’s arguments, just assertion. They fly in the face of Scottish experience, learn nothing from the Gould report and take nothing from what has happened in previous Scottish Parliament elections. They bear all the hallmarks of a political fix. Rather than an attempt to deliver genuine democratic progress, they are a mess, and they should be opposed.

[Mark Durkan]

Amendment 18 provides for the combination of three polls—the referendum, the Northern Ireland Assembly election and the Northern Ireland local elections. It will replace clause 4(4), and it provides that the polls are to be taken together on 5 May. The subsection that it replaces states:

“Where the date of the poll for”

Assembly or Northern Ireland local elections

“is the same as the date of the poll for the referendum, the polls are to be taken together”.

That would provide for the possibility that the Assembly or local elections might not be on the same day.

Clause 4(4) also allows sections 31 or 32 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to apply. Under section 31, even though the due date for the election would be the first Thursday in May 2011, in other words 5 May, it could take place two months either side of that. Section 32 provides for a situation in which there was something of a collapse of the Assembly, with the First or Deputy First Minister resigning and not being replaced. I do not want to speculate on that as a possibility, but it is not an absolute political impossibility. In that instance, it would fall to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to name another date, which would not have to be within two months either way.

It seems to me that amendment 18 flies in the face of that, because it will legislate for the three polls to be on the one day regardless. I wonder whether the Government are creating unnecessary tension with existing legislation, because the amendment removes the possibility left open in the Bill. I would appreciate the Minister addressing that point.

Amendments 158 to 179 to schedule 8, all relate to Northern Ireland. Amendment 162 states:

“The Chief Electoral Officer may not decide that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together unless the Chief Counting Officer agrees.”

The office of the chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland is a useful and important one. It normally falls to that officer to arrange Assembly elections, local elections, and—under the guidance and control of statute—any combination arrangements for such polls. Amendment 162 opens up the possibility of the chief electoral officer having the issue and receipt of the ballot papers for all three polls together. However, if for some reason the UK chief counting officer does not agree with that, it does not happen. We seek assurances on the effect of that on the two polls that are in the purview of the chief electoral officer, and that it will not mean that the chief electoral officer is somehow prohibited from going ahead with bespoke combination arrangements for the two Northern Ireland elections.

[Mr Dodds]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is arguing that Government amendment 18 in some way supersedes the ability of the Northern Ireland Assembly to move the election within a period of two months if they so wished? My understanding is that the amendment does not do that, but simply says that, if the referendum and the election were to be held on that date, they would be taken together. The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing something different.

[Mark Durkan]

I raise this because if one compares clause 4(4) with the text of amendment 18, it does seem to make a change. The text in the Bill allows for the possibility that is provided for in sections 31 and 32 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The amendment presumes and requires that the referendum and election happen together. There could be tension there, so I have asked the Minister to clarify or explain that. I am just puzzled by the wording. When one sees such variance in the words, one has to ask whether it is inadvertent or whether there is an intention behind it.

Amendment 162 raises the possibility of the UK chief counting officer disagreeing with the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland in respect of the arrangements for combining the issue and receipt of postal ballots. Hon. Members might say that that is unlikely to happen. If that is the case, why is the amendment legislating for such a possibility and what are the implications for the conduct of the other elections and the issue of the postal ballot? Again, I seek clarification from the Minister. In a UK-wide referendum on the voting system, representations could be made to the chief counting officer through the Electoral Commission and so on. There could be legal challenges and threats of legal challenges from a well-resourced campaign that wants to disrupt or create confusion during the election. The chief counting officer might be minded to say that the referendum postal ballot papers have to be handled separately, or some other pressure could cause disagreement. It could be that the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland does not get agreement from the chief counting officer. In such cases, what is the price of that possibility and how will it impact on the arrangements not just for the referendum postal ballot papers but for the issue and receipt of the postal ballot papers for the local elections and the Assembly?

Finally, amendment 177, to which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) referred, is a big amendment. Proposed new paragraph 44(2) to schedule 8 states:

“The spoilt postal ballot paper may not be replaced unless all the postal ballot papers issued to the person are returned.”

If we are providing for that in law, is it clearly stated in form 2—the form that is to apply in relation to a declaration of identity? The form provides advice on what to do in the case of a spoiled ballot, but it does not clearly state that one cannot return and have a spoiled ballot replaced unless all three forms are returned. There is confusion, so we need to see whether the effect of this amendment is properly covered, addressed and clearly expressed in the information that will be given to voters. It might be that voters reading the form as it is in the Bill will believe that they can have the referendum ballot paper replaced separately. If the Government are to go ahead with this amendment, they will have to make further amendments to the forms that are already in the Bill, or to the amended forms that they have provided for in this group of amendments.

[Geraint Davies]

As a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, which has taken a considerable amount of evidence on this subject, I feel that I can talk about the potential confusion that surrounds the combination of polls that we face. The House may be interested in the testimony of Philip Johnson, the chair of the Welsh branch of the Association of Electoral Administrators. He said:

“The capacity for confusion is immense.”

He said that 2015, when there will be the combination of polls, could be horrendous. He is not talking about voter confusion over policy issues, which will, I think, be a significant problem for our democracy.

In Wales, where we have a Labour Government, various proposals will be made to carry on, revive and enliven the policies in Wales. Alongside that, Labour will put forward a different set of proposals on focus and investment to take to the UK Parliament. Therefore, there will be quite different proposals from the same party for different elections on the same day. What is more, there may be varying views on alternative voting. Furthermore, we will have different constituencies for the Assembly and for the UK parliamentary election. For example, I might be standing as the candidate for Swansea West and, at the same time, voters could be asked to vote Labour for the Assembly Member for Swansea Central. Obviously, that could be confusing to voters. We could have one party making different proposals in the same area.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, which is why we should not have the referendum on the same date as other elections. I say that not because the electorate are not intelligent enough to understand that there are different questions being asked of them, but because the system itself is intrinsically and intentionally confusing.

[Geraint Davies]

I certainly agree with the hon. Lady. What I have just said is a prelude to what I was going to say about the inherent administrative confusion over the combination of the polls. I only added the issue about confusion in voters’ minds over the policy, where they live and who represents them because the same party will be saying different things to them.

To start with, therefore, people will go into polling stations feeling a bit confused because of that complexity, but there is a further problem. Normally, there will be different turnouts for different elections—traditionally, the UK election turnout is higher than the Assembly election turnout, and it can be expected to be higher than that for the AV referendum. People will go into polling stations without necessarily wanting to vote in all three polls, and without a settled position on them.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman will know that Wales has held European Parliament elections on the same day as Assembly elections. He should surely not overdo his point, because on those occasions, people were able to make a choice. It could be argued that the turnout for one election had a positive impact on the turnout for the other.

18:00

[Geraint Davies]

Having more than one poll on the same day is not without precedent. My point is that putting yet more questions in more elections on the same day adds complexity, which can lead to confusion and administrative problems.

[Mr MacNeil]

May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the real problem that we fear is what happened in the UK general election? The media tried to turn that into a presidential election. They skew what happens on the day by concentrating on one event and missing what is the main event to people who live in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. That is my concern, and I think it is shared on both sides of the House.

[Geraint Davies]

The hon. Gentleman is right and what he says is fair. Inevitably, the media will focus on the UK election and, to a certain extent, the AV referendum. In Wales or Scotland, there are points of difference between different parties on health and education and so on, but they will be overwhelmed by the background noise of the media, which will focus on health and education in England.

As the Conservative position on health develops, they might take out the strategic centre of the NHS in favour of a more atomised view. That is in complete contrast with the more traditional NHS model in Wales. However, the media will talk about the prospective changes to England’s NHS rather than what happens on the ground in Welsh hospitals. People’s understanding of how their hospital works could be quite different from what is actually happening, and they might vote on a false pretext. The power of the media talking about the UK will overwhelm knowledge of what is actually being delivered in local schools and hospitals, particularly among those who do not use such services.

[Mr David]

My hon. Friend referred to the excellent report by the Welsh Affairs Committee. Does he agree that the Committee summed things up very well? The report states that

“our concerns are not, first and foremost, about the principles at stake in each of these consultations with the nation. They are about the wisdom and fairness of cramming so much debate and decision into so short a space of time”.

That is the key message. We cannot have proper debates on electoral systems or elections if we cram them together on the same day. It is a question of democracy.

[Geraint Davies]

My hon. Friend is completely right—obviously, I am privileged to serve on that Committee.

There is a traditional comprehensive schooling system in Wales, but the situation in England has become different from that over the years, both under this Administration and the previous one. The choices faced by Welsh and English voters are therefore different, but again, they will be slightly confused.

[Ms Bagshawe]

Surely that is to underestimate the sophistication of the Welsh electorate. We have seen that voters in the United States are capable of engaging in multiple elections from multiple positions at state and presidential level, and that at one and the same time, they participate in ballot initiatives and referendums. US voters take a multiplicity of decisions with no discernible effect on their democracy.

[Geraint Davies]

I appreciate that the electorate is sophisticated and that it is possible to have more than one poll at a time. I am simply saying that given the respect agenda for devolution, there should be space for rational discussion of the choices facing Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland without that being overwhelmed by the media noise from the UK, which will impose a template that is different from what happens in the devolved countries. That is confusing.

The testimony to the Welsh Affairs Committee on potential confusion regarding the mechanics of the polls is very persuasive. I said that voters could be confused by issues—some voters are not quite as in tune as the hon. Lady—but many will not.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Of course, in the US, elections are so complex that they have the concept of punching the ticket. A voter can simply say, “I’m a Democrat,” and vote for all Democrats in one go.

However, my hon. Friend’s question on complexity and confusion could also apply to England, because there will be different types of elections using different voting systems on the same day. Regardless of the principles of voting systems and the big decisions made on them, does he agree that the key democratic principle is that Parliament takes its time and comes up with something that is coherent overall, rather than rushing through a dog’s breakfast of a series of Bills that is inherently incoherent and divisive?

[Geraint Davies]

My hon. Friend is completely right on the Government’s policy, but there will also be a problem with the situation on the ground. For example, the chair of the Association of Electoral Administrators said that

“there is…capacity for the polling station staff to be confused as to which ballot paper should go to which elector.”

Why is that? The chair told the Committee that in Newport, there were 1,000 European voters, who were not eligible for all of the ballots. In some ballots, some people had postal votes, but in others they did not. Someone would come to the polling station and say, “I want my vote,” but they had already been sent a postal vote.

In Wales, for proportionality, we vote for a list for the Assembly, but we also vote for a local Assembly Member. In addition, we might vote for a UK MP and in the AV referendum. The aggregate turnout will therefore be much higher. People may say, “That’s great. That’s good for democracy,” but if all those people turn up at a facility that is expecting fewer of them, and if the arrangements are as complex as I described, there will be more queuing. People will have to find different boxes of different colours and all the rest of it, so there is quite a lot of scope for major confusion that could undermine the democratic process that we all love.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

May I return the hon. Gentleman to what he said about the confusion on issues? There is a respect issue in relation to holding the AV referendum on the same day as the Assembly elections. However, on holding a UK Parliament election and an Assembly election on the same day, I am sure that he, like me, has received many letters on things such as the Academies Act 2010. Because of the power of the media, many in Wales were genuinely concerned about the implications of that legislation, but of course, it has no bearing whatever on Wales. That power cannot be understated in terms of holding the AV referendum and the election on the same day.

[Geraint Davies]

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is saying that the elections should not be on the same day. Is that right?

[Mr Williams]

indicated assent.

[Geraint Davies]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman believes that, because he is completely right. People are very influenced by the media—that is how they get information—but there is a lot of confusion. When Labour was in power in the UK Parliament, certain innovations in Wales were not carried out in England and vice versa. There was a slightly different policy on prescriptions, for instance. People would wonder, “What am I voting for? It says here that I’m voting for this, but the competition says that Labour is doing something different,” but they would be comparing literature for different elections. If people are unclear what is being said by different parties, they will be unable to make a rational decision or to say, “I will vote for this party because I prefer its proposals to those of other parties.” That undermines democracy itself.

[Mr Williams]

The capacity of the Welsh media to respond has been severely hampered, whether we look at the position of Sianel Pedwar Cymru or the loss of pluralism—[Interruption.] It is S4C, the Welsh language media—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. A Member who is making an intervention cannot take an intervention.

[Mr Williams]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.

My point is that the Welsh media are in a parlous state, so we cannot take for granted their capacity to respond to the UK media at election time.

[Geraint Davies]

If we had the traditional Sky debate, with the three leaders—or two leaders, now—and ignoring the nationalists, during Assembly elections, they would be even more annoyed, and they would have reason to be so. Indeed, they might even intervene.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not a question of underestimating the capacity of the electorate to make well-informed decisions on myriad voting papers and through different voting methods on any particular date? It is actually a question of overestimating the capacity of party workers to elucidate two or three different arguments at one time on the doorstep. This will lead to a dumbing down of the message from us to the electorate—

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

Is that possible?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

It could happen, unless Ministers have some secret plan and a network of workers who can explain two or three different messages on the doorstep. I do not have such an army of people.

[Geraint Davies]

The difficulty that we all have, as elected Members, is inspiring people who understand the issues to come out and vote one way or another. If there is general confusion, it will not engender confidence in the whole system.

[Mr David]

Like my hon. Friend, I do not underestimate the ability of the electorate to understand the complexities before them, but does he agree that it may be difficult to explain to people why they are voting on AV—which is not proportional representation but a version of first past the post—at the same time as they are voting in the Assembly elections with two votes, one for first past the post and the other in a proportional system in which votes will be allocated using a top-up list and the d’Hondt system?

[Geraint Davies]

It will be very complicated to explain to people in Wales why, when they already have a proportional representation system that is fair, they should opt for the alternative vote, which is not fair. The people in favour of AV will argue—although I do not agree—“Well, AV is better than first past the post. It may not be as good as what you already have in Wales, but we still want you to vote for it. By the way, we also want to talk about parking in hospitals”. People might also want to talk about the fact that Sky Television does not allow the nationalists to speak—although as I am being sponsored by Sky, I will not mention that. That was a joke.

[Mr MacNeil]

I come from the west of Skye, but that is another story.

Valid points have been made by hon. Members on both sides, but we should bear in mind—if we want a participative democracy—the attention span of voters, who will give only so much of their time to the message from politicians, whether it is dumbed down or quite complicated. They might do the American thing, where they slam down 140 ballots—or however many they are doing on one day—and vote the same way on a slate. We do not want that because, for example, Labour’s plans, and the big holes in its spending, should be scrutinised hard in the coming election.

[Geraint Davies]

I am certainly grateful that we will have a lot of scrutiny in Scotland. I agree that there is scope for confusion even though, as many hon. Members said, we cannot underestimate the sophistication of the electorate. However, one in five people in Britain are functionally illiterate and find it difficult to fill in forms. If they face four or more ballot papers, and a multiplicity of different questions in different areas and zones, it will be confusing. If we want to increase rather than decrease participation—and for people to vote how they intended to vote, and not vote the wrong way—we should make it easy for them by having a coherent system, with the choices being sequential rather than coincident.

18:15

On the basis of the testimony given to the Select Committee about the immense capacity for confusion and the horrendous administrative challenges, it is likely that several court cases will arise, especially where a small margin of votes decides the outcome. I once lost a seat by 75 votes, having received 20,000. If there are lots of ballot papers that appear to have been put into the wrong box and apparent incoherence in the way in which people voted, with spoilt ballot papers and postal votes, people will say, “Hold on, we need to take this to court.” Other people will say, “We went to this ballot place, but they have changed the boundaries.” So many changes are being made at the same time that we are asking for problems.

These proposals are a backward step for democracy. I appreciate the arguments for equal numbers in constituencies, but what people really want is effective democracy that works. They need to understand what they have voted for and they need to get what they voted for—if most people agreed. They want lines of accountability, so that they can talk to their Assembly Member about health and their Member of Parliament about benefits, for example. They do not want to be told, “Oh, we have changed the boundaries and they are no longer coterminous, so you can’t do that.” People do not want workers to knock on their door and say, “We want you to vote in this Assembly election and, by the way, there’s also a UK election, and these are the issues—and don’t forget the AV vote.”

We have had the comprehensive spending review, and in Wales some cuts will be imposed directly on non-devolved matters, such as the DVLA in Swansea, but some cuts will go through the Welsh Assembly as part of its grant, and it will have to make tough choices. People may be confused about who is doing what and what responsibility different people have for those choices. That undermines the democratic tapestry that we have set out through devolution to bring democracy closer to people, so that local decisions are made more closely to local people. If everything is scrambled up into a confusion overlaid by the mass media that want to get simple points across about the UK situation, thus crowding out more localised concerns, our democracy will be the worse for it. If the administration of the vote is in a state of collapse, things will be even worse.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Can my hon. Friend foresee a situation in which two Labour supporters were campaigning for an Assembly candidate and a voter asked, “What do you think about AV?”, and they had totally different viewpoints. They might get into an argument, which would help no one—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) obviously thinks that that is highly unlikely to happen.

[Geraint Davies]

I wish that we had enough party workers for that to happen. However, theoretically, the people campaigning in elections in an area may not agree on AV. In my city, we have several MPs, and it is possible that one of them—say, me—might not agree with AV, but another Labour MP might agree with it. If it was reported that Labour was in favour of AV, I would say that I was not in favour of it. All those problems will be superimposed on the Assembly and parliamentary votes, alongside shifted boundaries and some people losing their postal votes, leading to mass confusion and excessive cost.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Moving from policy, the mechanics of the proposal and the possible conjunction of elections, we have all been in the homes of elderly people who perhaps have difficulties filling in forms. We have rightly tightened the rules on the ability of politicians such as me to influence those decisions in any way, although we can try to help with guidance. On that basis, does my hon. Friend share my worry that, one way or the other, we could see a lot more spoilt ballot papers in those elections? If so, has he heard anything in any of these discussions about an increase in resources for electoral registration officers?

[Geraint Davies]

I certainly agree that it is very likely that the number of spoilt ballot papers will increase. We all know that some spoilt ballot papers—a very small proportion—are intentionally spoilt. People write a load of rubbish, which is clearly intentional. However, with the extra complexity, my judgment is that people will think that they have voted one way, but then change their minds and cross something out. Obviously the returning officer will say, “Well, that’s not a valid vote,” but if there are large numbers of such votes in those polls, which might have large or small turnouts—these are difficult things to judge—that will be unfortunate.

I have a concern, in that people have talked about the electorate as if they were a homogenous group, but in certain areas there will be less educational opportunity, inter-generational poverty and a lack of capability to fill in lots of forms, along with under-registration. When those factors are overlaid, it shows a built-in institutionalised discrimination against people who may be poorer or may have had fewer educational opportunities, and who may therefore be more likely either not to participate or to end up spoiling their ballot papers, and democracy would be the poorer for it.

I am sure that the Minister will respond to the point about the financial facilities made available to cope with the extra administration. Clearly there will be an enormous burden on local authorities. I know that the Boundary Commission for Wales has been given £1.9 million for redrawing the boundaries, as opposed to administering the election. Let us remember that only 3 million people live in Wales, yet an extra £1.9 million has been given for starters. When we aggregate that, adding the legal costs and so on, the sum involved will be enormous. Some of these proposals were sold to the media in the name of addressing all these costly MPs buying duck houses, or whatever they are supposed to have done, but the reality is that the cost of change will completely dwarf the savings on MPs. It is completely ridiculous. We are spending millions and millions of pounds setting up administrative complexity. Effective democracy will fall on its face, leading to legal challenges and a fall in confidence in the system, all of which is being railroaded through by a party that does not seem to care.

[John Mann]

My hon. Friend mentions the cost and expense of MPs. With an independent body setting MPs’ salaries, has he considered the certainty that if the Bill proceeds into law, it will inevitably increase the salary of MPs? The argument will be put—and doubtless accepted—that there is more work per MP, and that there should therefore be a certain rate for the job. Therefore, this Bill will not cut pay; it will in fact increase the pay of MPs.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are now clearly straying from the amendments before us.

[Geraint Davies]

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. What we are talking about is the combination of polls and the confusion that this could cause. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) suggested in his intervention that combining the polls should require extra money. I completely agree with that, and was simply making the point that the Boundary Commission for Wales has already been given £1.9 million just for redrawing the boundaries, let alone for carrying out the work on the political machinery, which will be enormous. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has simply made the point that those enormous costs will dwarf any prospective saving and that, in fact, there will probably be no saving at all.

I will bring my comments to a close. [Hon. Members: “More!”] Hon. Members should not encourage me, because I might end up reading the whole of the Welsh Affairs Committee report.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Not a chance.

[Geraint Davies]

I know that you have read the report a number of times already for your bedtime reading, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I do not want you to fall asleep again.

In conclusion, a combination of polls will be expensive and confusing, and will undermine democracy and lead to legal challenge. The Bill does not factor in the problems of having postal votes for some votes and not for others, the different systems superimposed on the same day, and the fact that the media might dwell on one election rather than another, thereby undermining the ability of local parties to send discrete messages to discrete audiences. It is a sad day for democracy.

[Kevin Brennan]

I will attempt to be reasonably concise. It is worth returning to the amendments, which are about the combination of polls, and reminding ourselves—and the literally dozens of people who I am sure are still watching on the BBC Parliament channel, after our deliberations so far—why we are discussing combining the referendum in the Bill with the Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly, Scottish Parliament and local government elections.

The only reason we are doing that is down to one man, who has been completely invisible during our deliberations, namely the Deputy Prime Minister. The only reason we are discussing this issue is that the Deputy Prime Minister is convinced that his best chance of winning the referendum on the introduction of the alternative vote will be if it takes place on the same day as the elections to the devolved Assemblies and the local government elections. As the amendments in the group show, this is not a matter of finance, although that argument is sometimes put forward. It is nothing to do with that; rather, it is entirely to do with a belief that the alternative vote is more likely to be supported in a referendum if it is held on the same day as those other elections.

In that sense, this is one of the most surreal debates in which I have ever participated in the House of Commons, because the Deputy Prime Minister will not come here himself to make that point. Instead he sends along the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who comes along to make the case, even though he does not himself believe that the alternative vote should be passed into law. In fact, this is the second time in one day that he has had to come forward to promote Liberal Democrat policy in the House. After the duffing up that he got in the Tea Room after the first time, I hope that he is a bit safer now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are talking about the combination of polls, not the Deputy Prime Minister. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman now directed himself to the amendments before us.

[Kevin Brennan]

Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point that I was making was that the very reason for the amendments that are before us, about the combination of polls, is to do with the beliefs of one person, who has put up the Minister, as it were, to come along and defend those amendments.

A lot has been made of the potential confusion that could arise. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe), whom I commend for taking a lot of interest in these proceedings. I take her point about American elections; in fact, my wife is an American citizen and still votes in American elections. We get the very lengthy ballot papers that people receive through the post in California, and which do indeed combine polls on many different issues on one day. I am less disturbed by my constituents’ ability to distinguish between different issues on the same day than I am by the contempt that the Government have shown. I am disturbed by the contempt shown for the devolved Administrations by he who must not be named—I am not going to mention his name again, for fear of upsetting you, Mr Deputy Speaker—when, although he represents a party that claims to be a party of devolution, he completely ignores the wishes of the devolved Administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

18:30

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Like my hon. Friend, I think my constituents will be able to cope with the technical difficulties of dealing with two or three ballot papers on the same day. The problem is not confusion on the part of electors, but that the focus of political debate in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will inevitably be on what will be general elections in those countries. That is what will distort the reality, not the two votes on the same day. Newspapers and the media will focus on the general elections, not on the alternative vote referendums, so that matter will not receive the sort of scrutiny that it should.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and that point has been clearly made during the debate. We know that that is the reality. Debates on national elections in Scotland and Wales, and elections in Northern Ireland, will be swamped in the general UK media by discussion about the referendum on the alternative vote.

The hon. Member for Corby was right constitutionally and technically to say that such matters, with the exception of a couple, are reserved. First, the UK Government have generally agreed through their various protocols with the devolved Administrations to consult on matters directly affecting them, and protocols exist in the civil service to enable those consultations to take place, but they are being abandoned because of the desire of he who shall not be named to meet the deadline to enable the measure to be rushed through.

[Ms Bagshawe]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kevin Brennan]

I will give way in a moment, but first I want to make my second point, about why I think the hon. Lady is wrong. One of the first actions by her leader, when he became Prime Minister—many of us thought it was commendable at the time—was to visit the devolved Administrations and to make it clear that the interaction between the UK Government and those devolved Administrations would be based on respect. In this instance, the Government have fallen far short of the Prime Minister’s aim and his promise at that time.

[Ms Bagshawe]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous comments earlier. It is regrettable that the catchphrase—the respect agenda—about which we hear so much from Opposition Members, does not seem to work two ways. The matter is a devolved one for the United Kingdom Government, and Opposition Members have failed to realise how strongly voters in England feel about the democratic deficit to which they are subjected, which the Bill aims to remedy.

[Kevin Brennan]

We have found out what respect means to the hon. Lady. For me it means having mutual respect, and when the previous Administration offered devolved government to people in England, they turned it down. It is a matter of respect that if people in England do not want devolved government, that is a matter for them. My point is that the Prime Minister took the trouble to visit the capitals of Wales and Scotland, as well as Belfast, to talk to the devolved Administrations. He promised a relationship of respect, despite the fact that the Conservative party was originally vehemently opposed to devolution, and said that things had changed and the relationship was new. However, because of the needs of he who shall not be named, the Government had to abandon that respect agenda and provide for the combination of polls.

[Mark Durkan]

I thank my hon. Friend for emphasising the principles of the respect agenda concerning the devolved Administrations, but it should also apply to this Chamber. Is it not odd to have a Deputy Prime Minister who relies on deputies to appear in the Chamber more than he does?

[Kevin Brennan]

I fear that I will test your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I make a further reference to he who shall not be named, but clearly my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. My point, Mr Deputy Prime Minister—I mean Mr Deputy Speaker; that was a Freudian slip, and he shall be named after all. My point, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that many Labour Members are favourably inclined towards electoral reform, but others are not. Many of us would have looked forward to the opportunity—it was in our manifesto—of putting the question to the British people and allowing them to decide in a clean, clear referendum for which that was the sole focus of the discussion. That could easily have happened, and that is exactly what should have happened.

As that did not happen, many of us who are favourably inclined towards electoral reform are severely demotivated in terms of putting our weight behind what seems to be a venture with no respect for those of us who might support that agenda. That may suit many hon. Members on both sides of the House who do not agree with electoral reform, but I think it is a terrible shame, because we will all devote our energy to the important national elections in the devolved Administrations, and the referendum will be ignored during those elections. I shall vote in favour of the alternative vote in the referendum, but I fear that it will be lost. Boy, won’t that be awkward for he who must not be named!

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I want to speak about the complexity, confusion and unfairness that have so often been referred to in this debate, and that comes from the perspective of having suffered the ignominy of a proposition for regional government for the north-east of England, which I vehemently supported, being lost in a referendum, almost six years ago to the day. Part of the reason for that, although not the only one by any stretch of the imagination, was the fact that the question of regional government for the north-east of England was combined on the same ballot paper with a question about what form of unitary local government was wanted.

Although 70% of electors in the north-east of England were not subject to any change in local authority, the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister sent out a six-page supplement to every voter in the region, four pages of which were about local government reorganisation. Many of my constituents rang me asking whether the proposal would mean the end of Gateshead council. It had no impact on Gateshead council, other councils in Tyne and Wear, or councils in Teesside, but the six-page document had four pages about local government reform, and of course the whole concept of regional government for England was lost at that stage.

When addressing the issue of complexity, confusion and fairness, we must look at the coalition Government’s stance. They have repeatedly told us that their actions in passing legislation and making ministerial judgments must pass the acid test of fairness. So is the proposed measure fair or is it not? In fact, the junior coalition partners have almost made it their mantra that they will support their senior coalition partners as long as measures are seen to be fair. The Bill clearly fails that test in many ways, yet the “fairness party”, as the Liberal Democrats see themselves, is still voting in the Lobby to support it—with a handful of notable exceptions on some clauses and amendments. Citizens’ capacity to vote in a referendum is vital, and part of the unfairness to which I refer is the fact that the arbitrary nature of the Government’s proposal disregards the geography and natural togetherness of local communities. I envisage that virtually every constituency in the country will be subject to change—with the exception, of course, of the two constituencies exempted because of their peripheral geography, and because they encompass so many islands.

It is difficult to fathom a scenario in which, in order to meet the twin criteria of ending up with exactly 600 constituencies that must all comprise exactly 76,000 electors, plus or minus 5%, there will be knock-on effects across county boundaries and even regional boundaries—

[Mr Harper]

You’re in the wrong part of the Bill.

[Ian Mearns]

I’m getting there.

It is no wonder that—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am also a little concerned that the hon. Gentleman is going wide of the subject of the combination of polls. Perhaps he could stick to the confusion that he spoke about earlier. This sounds a bit like a speech for a Third Reading debate.

[Ian Mearns]

Mr Deputy Speaker, the unfairness to which I want to address my remarks mainly relates to town and city dwellers. I am not for one moment implying that the people whom I speak of do not exist in the countryside; they do, of course, but not in anywhere near the same kind of numbers as in our towns and cities. The calculations that the Government have made in drawing up their criteria totally disregard the 3.5 million people who are not registered to vote or to take part in the referendum—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Yet again, I think that the hon. Gentleman has not really paid due attention to the amendments before him. He is entering into a much wider debate. I ask him to look again at the subject of the combination of polls, please.

[Ian Mearns]

Not only will those people be unable to vote in the elections; they will also be unable to vote in the referendum on our voting system. There are many reasons why people will be unable to enfranchise themselves, and it is important to have regard for such people. Some might be in debt and trying to escape from their creditors. Others might be trying to avoid violent loan sharks. They will not be enfranchised to take part in a referendum because they are trying to escape from the people who are pursuing them. Some might be victims of domestic violence hiding from violent former partners—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help me a little. Which amendment is he speaking to?

[Ian Mearns]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to return to this matter on Third Reading, but there are some important points about the Bill that need to be made.

[Mr Harper]

I did not detect any focus on the amendments in the last few speeches, so I shall not address the points that were made in them. I shall focus instead on those Members who troubled themselves to speak to the amendments and raised sensible points, as did the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). He and others mentioned that the orders relate to the elections and not to the referendum. The conduct of the elections is not devolved, as my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) said. The hon. Gentleman will know that, under the Calman proposals, we propose to move the administration of those elections to the Scottish Parliament.

The orders that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are not amendable, and I hope that the House will support them. If it does not, I have already said that we will revert to the original provisions in the Bill, which have been debated and voted on by the House. Either way, the House of Commons will have had the opportunity to consider both scenarios—without the new orders and with them—and to pronounce on them. I am therefore confident that the House and the other place will have taken those decisions, whatever they might be.

[Chris Bryant]

When the hon. Gentleman says that the Government would revert to the previous provisions, I presume he means that he would table amendments in the House of Lords, because he would not be able to table them here. In that case, he would not have met his own criterion that matters relating to the elections would be decided on here.

[Mr Harper]

No, not at all. If Parliament did not adopt the orders, we would indeed have to table the amendments in the House of Lords, but in so doing, we would simply be bringing the Bill back to the stage that it is at with the amendments that have already been debated and voted on by this House. Either way, it would be this House that had effectively decided on the machinery for our electoral arrangements. I hope that I have set that out clearly, even though I know that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with it.

I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is no longer in his place, or, indeed, any other place—[Hon. Members: “He must be somewhere!”] Well, he is not in the Chamber. He must be somewhere, but he is not here. He talked about the respect agenda, and he and others talked about holding elections and referendums on the same day. We have had this debate before, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will not try your patience.

The hon. Gentleman made some sensible points on the coincidence of elections, notably of a UK general election and devolved elections. He knows that that matter has been highlighted—although not actually put in place—by the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, and we have already said that we are thinking about possible solutions. When the Government have settled on a position, we will consult parties in each of the devolved nations—not the devolved Administrations, because they only represent one or more parties—to come up with a solution. That relates to the coincidence of elections; the Government do not think that the combination of a referendum and elections will have the same qualitative impact.

[Tom Greatrex]

Surely the solution is to have four-year fixed-term Parliaments. The UK and Scottish parliamentary elections would then never happen on the same date.

[Mr Harper]

I will not dwell on that point at length, because you would rule me out of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Briefly, however, I will say that it would be possible, if there were an early UK general election or if the devolved Administrations’ cycles changed, to have four-year terms for both Administrations. That could result in coincidence on every occasion, rather than just once every 20 years. I will not pursue that, however, as it relates to a different piece of legislation, which the House will have the chance to debate in due course.

[Chris Bryant]

I know that the Minister will not want to dwell on this point either, but he was talking about process, and about the amendments that he might or might not have to table. If the Government change the law on prisoners’ voting, they will have to do so in primary legislation. Will the Minister make it clear that he would not do that by tabling amendments to this Bill in the House of Lords?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman is getting ahead of himself a little. I made it clear in the statement that the Government had not yet made any decisions on how to implement that judgment. We have made it quite clear on a number of other issues relating to this Bill that it is about the referendum. Indeed, we have resisted amendments in which people have tried to make changes that would have a wider policy impact and that should be made elsewhere. For example, we had a debate on the appropriate age at which people should be able to vote. There was a general view on the Government Benches, even among those who support that provision for elections in general, that this Bill was not the right place in which to make those arrangements. I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.

The hon. Gentleman asked why the form for the postal voting statement to be used for Scottish Parliament elections in which the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers was not combined had been changed. The Scotland Office has updated the form in the 2010 order, and we have followed that in the Bill for the purposes of the Scottish Parliament elections next May.

The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) asked why, in Northern Ireland, all postal ballot papers had to be returned if one was spoiled. In cases of a combined poll, there will be a pack containing all the ballot papers, and another pack would have to be issued in such circumstances. Someone could end up with multiple ballot papers for the same election, if the first set were not returned. That is also the long-standing practice in England, Wales and Scotland. I shall come to the hon. Member for Foyle’s other points in a second, and he can come back to me if he does not think that that answer is appropriate.

The hon. Member for Rhondda also asked why proposed new paragraph 42 in amendment 177 referred to the words before “the colour” being omitted. The words are being omitted when the poll at one election is taken with the poll at another election. The reason that we have omitted them is because, if the elections happen on 5 May, we know that there will be combinations and that the words will be redundant. He also asked why amendment 78 changed the wording in line 3 of page 266. It is a consequential minor change—consequential to the drafting change made to the order governing the Scottish Parliament elections—and it is not intended to have any practical effect.

I was asked about amendment 78 and the changes to provisions on abandonment of poll in the Scottish parliamentary elections. Again, this follows changes to the 2010 order, which separates out for the first time provisions dealing with the death of a candidate in a regional election from those dealing with the death of a candidate in a constituency election. This means we have to amend the provision, making it clear how the abandonment of either poll would affect the referendum. The policy remains that the referendum poll would continue.

[Chris Bryant]

Does that meet the requirements of the later amendment that deals with the equality of votes where a candidate has died?

[Mr Harper]

They are about different things; they are not linked. [Interruption.] No, the later amendment is about how the AV rules would work, whereas this one is about the working of the elections taking place next year. They are separate issues.

I was also asked about the use of black ink on the postal voting statement. Because it is for the postal voting statement, it is not relevant to the forms used in the polling station. My understanding and my advice is that the use of black ink is to make the document easier to verify when it is checked and scanned when the postal vote identifiers are being checked. I will make further inquiries, however, and write to the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) if this proves not to be the case.

[Kevin Brennan]

Will the Minister confirm now—or, if not, later in that letter—whether, if an elector does not use black ink, the postal vote will not be invalidated?

[Mr Harper]

I will look further into that. The real issue is the ease with which returning officers can validate the identifiers. I understand that, where that is not able to be done automatically, it means in practice that it has to be done manually. As I say, however, I will check, write to the hon. Gentleman, copy it to the hon. Member for Rhondda and place a copy in the House of Commons Library.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) said that there were a significant number of amendments. That is true, although as I think the hon. Member for Rhondda acknowledged in his remarks, a lot of them are very technical. They consist of replacing 2007 with 2010, for example, and use straightforward language to reflect what has been changed. The issues of substance, particularly those affecting Northern Ireland—where significant changes have been made to postal voting—have been discussed.

The hon. Member for Foyle raised a number of issues. He asked whether the chief electoral officer could still combine working on local and Assembly elections. Yes, he can. I was asked why the chief counting officer and the Northern Ireland chief electoral officer need to agree on the issue of the receipt of postal ballot papers. The chief counting officer co-ordinates the referendum nationally, so he has the general power of direction. The chief electoral officer of Northern Ireland obviously knows that situation on the ground, so it makes sense for them both to agree on whether to issue combined postal votes. The same position applies in the rest of the United Kingdom. We were urged at an earlier stage of our debate to make this mandatory, but combining the postal ballot papers would sometimes not be practical. Legislating for something that proves not to be practical is not very sensible.

The hon. Member for Foyle also made a point about amendment 18. My advice is that it is not intended to—and, we understand, it does not—change the position on the ability of the Northern Ireland Assembly to change the date. He raises a good point, however, and if he is concerned about it, it is worth my reflecting on it further. I will do so and write to him when I have thought more about it. I repeat that it is not the intention to change the position and we do not believe that it does. The point is nevertheless worth dealing with, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman, if that is acceptable.

[Mr Dodds]

When the Minister writes to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), will he give the same undertaking to put his response in the House of Commons Library?

[Mr Harper]

Yes, of course. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to confirm that. I will write to the hon. Member for Foyle, copy my reply to the hon. Member for Rhondda and place it in the Library for the benefit of all hon. Members. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. A number of private conversations are going on, and I am finding it difficult to listen to the Minister. If Members want to have a chat, will they please go outside the Chamber?

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I have just one further point. The hon. Member for Foyle also raised an issue about whether the language on the forms was clear enough about spoiled ballot papers. The form mentions the need to return all the spoiled papers, but that might leave some ambiguity, so I will reflect further on it. There are two things worth saying. We have an opportunity to deal with the issue, but the hon. Gentleman will know that at an earlier stage of our proceedings, the House agreed to an amendment that gave the Electoral Commission permission to make the forms—but not the ballot papers—more accessible for disabled people and easier for voters to understand. To be clear, if, after the Bill receives its Royal Assent, as I hope it does, any further issues are raised as to whether the forms are as clear as they could be, the Electoral Commission will have the power to make those changes to facilitate accessibility or make the forms easier to use.

[Mark Durkan]

I thank the Minister for those particular assurances, but on my reading, form 3A under schedule 8 does not explain that if one ballot is spoiled, they all have to be returned. That is not at all clear in the wording. Any effective amendment would need to lead to a change of wording on the form, perhaps through the channel that the Minister has described.

[Mr Harper]

I agree. I said that I thought the hon. Gentleman made a fair point. I will go away, think about whether it is a real concern—it is a good point—and decide on the best way to deal with it. I hope that that is helpful. I believe that I have addressed the points made by hon. Members and I hope that the House will agree to the Government amendments.

Amendment 18 agreed to.

Amendment made: 19, page 3, leave out lines 31 and 32.—(Mr Harper.)

Schedule 7

Combination of polls: Scotland

Amendments made: 44, page 212, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—

‘“the 2010 Order” means the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010;’.

Amendment 45, page 212, line 15, leave out from ‘Article’ to ‘Order’ and insert ‘14 of the 2010’.

Amendment 46, page 212, line 32, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.

Amendment 47, page 212, line 41, leave out ‘19 of the 2007’ and insert ‘18 of the 2010’.

Amendment 48, page 213, line 9, leave out ‘20 of the 2007’ and insert ‘19 of the 2010’.

Amendment 49, page 213, line 19, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.

Amendment 50, page 213, line 31, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.

Amendment 51, page 214, line 34, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.

Amendment 52, page 215, line 5, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.

Amendment 53, page 216, line 1, leave out ‘second sentence of’ and insert ‘requirement for separate ballot boxes in’.

Amendment 54, page 216, line 33, leave out ‘and (12)’.

Amendment 55, page 216, line 40, leave out ‘(13)’ and insert ‘(12)’.

Amendment 56, page 218, line 18, leave out ‘46(7)’ and insert ‘46(6)’.

Amendment 57, page 218, line 35, leave out ‘46(7)’ and insert ‘46(6)’.

Amendment 58, page 218, line 38, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.

Amendment 59, page 219, line 11, leave out ‘47(5)’ and insert ‘47(4)’.

Amendment 60, page 219, line 21, leave out ‘48(7)(a)’ and insert ‘48(6)(a)’.

Amendment 61, page 219, line 35, leave out ‘48(9)’ and insert ‘48(8)’.

Amendment 62, page 220, line 5, leave out ‘49(8)’ and insert ‘49(7)’.

Amendment 63, page 220, line 7, leave out ‘49(12)’ and insert ‘49(10)’.

Amendment 64, page 220, line 24, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 65, page 220, line 29, leave out from ‘53(1)’ to first ‘reference’ in line 30 and insert ‘and (2) of the Scottish Parliamentary Election Rules, a’.

Amendment 66, page 220, line 31, leave out from ‘referendum’ to ‘does’ in line 32 and insert—

‘( ) Rule 53(2)(g) of those rules’.

Amendment 67, page 220, line 37, leave out ‘53(1)(a)’ and insert ‘53(2)(a)’.

Amendment 68, page 220, line 38, leave out paragraph 40 and insert—

‘40 Rule 53(2) of the Scottish Parliamentary Election Rules has effect as if “counting officer” were substituted for “CRO” in each place.’.

Amendment 69, page 221, line 2, leave out ‘53(3)’ and insert ‘53(4)’.

Amendment 70, page 222, line 27, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.

Amendment 71, page 222, line 33, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.

Amendment 72, page 223, line 8, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—

‘(5) The counting officer must, on request, provide an election agent for the Scottish parliamentary election with a copy of the statement relating to that election.’.

Amendment 73, page 224, line 12, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.

Amendment 74, page 225, line 16, leave out from ‘the’ to ‘and’ in line 17 and insert ‘polling register (within the meaning given in Article 2(1) of the 2010 Order),’.

Amendment 75, page 225, line 24, leave out ‘69(1)(e), (f) and (h)’ and insert ‘69(1)(c), (d) and (f)’.

Amendment 76, page 225, line 27, leave out from first ‘the’ to end of line 28 and insert ‘CRO were to the counting officer’.

Amendment 77, page 225, line 36, leave out ‘72’ and insert ‘72(4), 75(2) or 77(1)’.

Amendment 78, page 226, line 3, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) and insert—

‘(2) Rule 78 of the Scottish Parliamentary Election Rules has effect as if it were amended in accordance with sub-paragraphs (3) and (3A).

(3) In paragraph (2), after “ CRO” insert “or counting officer”.

(3A) For paragraph (3) substitute—

“(3) After the close of any polls that are being taken together with the poll that has been abandoned, the counting officer must—

(a) separate the ballot papers for the abandoned poll, and

(b) deliver or cause to be delivered to the CRO the ballot papers and other documents relating to the abandoned poll.

(3A) Paragraphs (4) to (9) apply in relation to the poll that has been abandoned.”’.

Amendment 79, page 226, line 28, leave out ‘72(8)’ and insert ‘78(10)’.

Amendment 80, page 226, line 32, leave out ‘Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2007 (S.I. 2007/937)’ and insert ‘2010 Order’.

Amendment 81, page 227, line 1, leave out ‘20A(4) or 20B(3)(a)’ and insert ‘20(4)(b), 21(4)(b) or 22(3)(b)’.

Amendment 82, page 227, line 2, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.

Amendment 83, page 227, line 4, leave out ‘28’ and insert ‘30’.

Amendment 84, page 227, line 5, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.

Amendment 85, page 227, line 9,, leave out ‘(9)’ and insert ‘(10)’.

Amendment 86, page 227,, leave out lines 22 to 25.

Amendment 87, page 228, line 8, at end insert—

‘“proxy postal voters list” includes the list kept under paragraph 8(6) of Schedule3 to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2010;”;’.

Amendment 88, page 228, line 27, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 89, page 228, line 35, leave out ‘constituency returning officer’ and insert ‘CRO’.

Amendment 90, page 228, line 40, before ‘In’ insert—

‘In sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) for “CRO” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer”;

(b) for “CRO’s” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer’s”.’.

Amendment 91, page 228, line 40, leave out ‘sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), for “constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘sub-paragraph (2), for “CRO”’.

Amendment 92, page 229,, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert—

(a) the CRO and members of the CRO’s staff;’.

Amendment 93, page 230, line 13, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 94, page 230, line 18, leave out ‘(8)’ and insert ‘(9)’.

Amendment 95, page 230, line 18, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 96, page 230, line 21, leave out ‘(5)’ and insert ‘(6)’.

Amendment 97, page 230, line 22, leave out ‘(8)’ and insert ‘(9)’.

Amendment 98, page 230, line 23, leave out ‘“(8A)’ and insert ‘“(9A)’.

Amendment 99, page 230, line 24, leave out ‘(6) or (9)’ and insert ‘(7) or (10)’.

Amendment 100, page 230, line 28, leave out ‘(10)’ and insert ‘(11)’.

Amendment 101, page 231, line 14, leave out ‘32(5)’ and insert ‘31(5)’.

Amendment 102, page 231, line 29, leave out ‘32(5)’ and insert ‘31(5)’.

Amendment 103, page 231, line 21, leave out ‘constituency returning officer’ and insert ‘CRO’.

Amendment 104, page 232, line 15, leave out ‘7(7)’ and insert ‘9(7)’.

Amendment 105, page 232, line 17, leave out ‘constituency returning officer’ and insert ‘CRO’.

Amendment 106, page 232, column2, leave out lines 19 and 20.

Amendment 107, page 233,, leave out lines 4 to 10.

Amendment 108, page 233, line 36, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 109, page 233, line 42, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 110, page 234, line 3, before ‘In’ insert—

‘“In sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) for “CRO” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer”;

(b) for “CRO’s” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer’s”.’.

Amendment 111, page 234, line 3, leave out ‘sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), for “constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘sub-paragraph (2), for “CRO”’.

Amendment 112, page 234, line 7, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 113, page 234, line 10, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 114, page 234, line 12, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 115, page 234, line 15, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 116, page 235, line 35, leave out ‘20A’ and insert ‘21’.

Amendment 117, page 235, line 36, leave out ‘20B’ and insert ‘22’.

Amendment 118, page 236, line 18, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 119, page 236, line 29, leave out from ‘sub-paragraph (4)’ to end of line 30 and insert

‘(a) for “CRO’s” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer’s”; (b) after “then” insert “lock the ballot box (if it has a lock) and”’.’.

Amendment 120, page 236, line 31, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 121, page 236, line 35, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 122, page 236, line 41, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 123, page 236, line 43, leave out ‘(7)’ and insert ‘(10)’.

Amendment 124, page 237, line 2, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 125, page 237, line 3, column2, at end insert—

‘In sub-paragraph (4)(c), for “CRO’s” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer’s”.’.

Amendment 126, page 237, line 5, leave out ‘20A’ and insert ‘21’.

Amendment 127, page 237, line 5, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 128, page 237, line 6, column 2, at end insert—

‘In sub-paragraph (4)(c), for “CRO’s” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer’s”.’.

Amendment 129, page 237, line 9, leave out ‘20B’ and insert ‘22’.

Amendment 130, page 237, line 9, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 131, page 237, line 10, column 2, at end insert—

‘In sub-paragraphs (3)(c) and (5), for “CRO’s” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer’s”.’.

Amendment 132, page 237, line 13, leave out ‘lock and’.

Amendment 133, page 237, line 16, leave out ‘21’ and insert ‘23’.

Amendment 134, page 237, line 16, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 135, page 237, line 19, leave out ‘22’ and insert ‘24’.

Amendment 136, page 237, line 19, leave out ‘(3), for “constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘(2), for “returning officer”, and for “CRO”,’.

Amendment 137, page 237, line 24, column2, at end insert—

‘In sub-paragraph (3)—

(a) for “CRO” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer”;

(b) for “CRO’s” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer’s”.’

Amendment 138, page 237, line 25, leave out ‘23’ and insert ‘25’.

Amendment 139, page 237, line 26, leave out ‘constituency returning officer’ and insert ‘CRO’.

Amendment 140, page 237, line 30, leave out ‘24’ and insert ‘26’.

Amendment 141, page 237, line 30, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 142, page 237, line 35, leave out ‘25’ and insert ‘27’.

Amendment 143, page 237, line 35, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 144, page 237, line 38, leave out ‘26’ and insert ‘28’.

Amendment 145, page 237, line 38, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 146, page 237, line 41, leave out ‘27’ and insert ‘29’.

Amendment 147, page 238, line 2, leave out ‘28’ and insert ‘30’.

Amendment 148, page 238, column2, leave out lines 2 to 48 and insert—

‘In sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) for the words before sub-paragraph (a) substitute “The relevant returning or counting officer shall retain, together with the documents mentioned in rule 69(1) of the Scottish Parliamentary Election Rules and rule 49 of the referendum rules”;

(b) in paragraph (a), for the words from “the election to which” to the end substitute “the election or referendum to which it relates and the area to which it relates”;

(c) in paragraph (b), at the end insert “in respect of the election, and a completed statement in the form set out in Form 10 in Part 3 of Schedule 7 to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2010 in respect of the referendum”.’

Amendment 149, page 239, line 3, leave out ‘53(1)(g)’ and insert ‘53(2)(g)’.

Amendment 150, page 239, line 6, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 151, page 239, leave out lines 9 to 12.

Amendment 152, page 239, line 13, leave out ‘68 and 69’ and insert ‘68, 69, 70 and 71(1)’.

Amendment 153, page 239, leave out lines 29 to 38 and insert—

‘(i) in relation to a document or packet relating to the Scottish parliamentary election, rules 68, 69, 70 and 71(1) of the Scottish Parliamentary Election Rules;

(ii) in relation to a document or packet relating to the referendum, rules 50 and 51 of the referendum rules.”’.

Amendment 154, page 239, line 39, leave out from ‘sub-paragraph (4)’ to end of line 42 and insert ‘for “CRO”’.

Amendment 155, page 240, leave out line 9.

Amendment 156, page 245, line 5 (Form 4—Form of postal voting statement (to be used for Scottish parliamentary election where proceedings on issue and receipt of postal ballot papers not combined)).

Amendment 157, page 251, line 9 (Form 10—Statement as to postal ballot papers for the referendum).—(Mr Harper.)



Schedule 8

Combination of polls: Northern Ireland

Amendments made: 158, page 255, line 6, at end insert—

(ba) Part 5 of the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2009/1741) or Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (S.I. 1985/454) (issue and receipt of postal ballot papers);’.

Amendment 159, page 255, line 25, at end insert—

(0) rule 16A (corresponding number list);’.

Amendment 160, page 255, line 36, at end insert—

( ) a provision referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(ba), (3)(c) or (h) or (4)(b),’.

Amendment 161, page 255, line 39, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert—

( ) rule 16A of the Local Elections Rules to the extent that it relates to ballot papers issued in pursuance of rule 21(1) of those rules, or’.

Amendment 162, page 255, line 44, at end insert—

‘( ) The Chief Electoral Officer may not decide that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together unless the Chief Counting Officer agrees.’.

Amendment 163, page 256, line 2, leave out ‘, 3’ and insert ‘to 3B’.

Amendment 164, page 256, line 13, at end insert—

( ) rule 16A of the Local Elections Rules.’.

Amendment 165, page 256, line 16, at end insert—

( ) rule 16A(2) of the Local Elections Rules.’.

Amendment 166, page 256, line 25, at end insert—

( ) rule 26(1) of the Local Elections Rules.’.

Amendment 167, page 256, line 31, at end insert—

( ) rule 16A of the Local Elections Rules.’.

Amendment 168, page 257, line 31, leave out ‘this paragraph’ and insert ‘sub-paragraph (2)’.

Amendment 169, page 257, line 33, at end insert—

‘(4) The declaration of identity to be used by those entitled to vote by post in the Assembly election must be in the form set out in Form 3A in Part 2 of this Schedule.

(5) Sub-paragraph (4) applies instead of the requirement in rule 24(1) of the Assembly Elections Rules for a declaration of identity to be in a particular form.

(6) The declaration of identity to be used by those entitled to vote by post in the local election must be in the form set out in Form 3B in Part 2 of this Schedule.

(7) Sub-paragraph (6) applies instead of the requirement in rule 21(1) of the Local Elections Rules for a declaration of identity to be in a particular form.’.

Amendment 170, page 258, line 16, at end insert—

(0) rule 26(3)(e) of the Local Elections Rules.’.

Amendment 171, page 258, line 18, at end insert—

( ) rule 26(3ZC) of the Local Elections Rules.’.

Amendment 172, page 260, line 38, at end insert—

22A (1) This paragraph applies where the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together.

(2) If the Chief Electoral Officer thinks fit, he or she may require the relevant registration officer to produce—

(a) a combined postal voters list, consisting of the things that would otherwise be included in—

(i) the postal voters list for the referendum;

(ii) the list under paragraph 2(4)(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order;

(iii) the list under section 7(4)(a) of the Representation of the People Act 1985 as applied for the purposes of Assembly elections by Article 3(1) of, and Schedule 1 to, the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001;

(b) a combined proxy postal voters list, consisting of the things that would otherwise be included in—

(i) the proxy postal voters list for the referendum;

(ii) the list under paragraph 4(8) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order;

(iii) the list under section 9(9) of the Representation of the People Act 1985 as applied for the purposes of Assembly elections by Article 3(1) of, and Schedule 1 to, the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001.’.

Amendment 173, page 265, line 41, at end insert—

‘( ) Where lists are prepared as mentioned in paragraph 7(2), 8(2) or 16(1)—

(a) rules 49(1)(b) and 51 of the referendum rules apply to the packets of those lists;

(b) rule 58(1) of the Local Elections Rules applies as if sub-paragraph (da), so far is it relates to those lists, were omitted.’.

Amendment 174, page 266, line 6, after ‘rule’ insert ‘60 or’.

Amendment 175, page 266, line 9, after ‘61’ insert ‘or 63’.

Amendment 176, page 266, line 42, leave out ‘61(2)’ insert ‘64(1) to (6)’.—(Mr Harper.)



Amendment proposed: 177, page 266, line 42, at end insert—

Part 1A

Postal voting

Interpretation

39 In this Part—

“the 2008 Regulations” means—the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1741) as applied for purposes of the referendum by Part 3 of Schedule4, and those regulations as applied for the purposes of Assembly elections by Article 3(2) of, and Schedule 2 to, the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/2599);

(a) the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1741) as applied for purposes of the referendum by Part 3 of Schedule4, and

(b) those regulations as applied for the purposes of Assembly elections by Article 3(2) of, and Schedule 2 to, the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/2599);

“the Local Elections Order” means the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (S.I. 1985/454).

Attendance at proceedings on issue and receipt of postal ballot papers

40 (1) This paragraph applies where the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together.

(2) The following provisions have effect as if the persons listed in them included persons who would be entitled to be present at the proceedings on the issue or receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum or a relevant election if those proceedings were taken on their own.

(3) The provisions are—

(a) regulation 72 of the 2008 Regulations;

(b) paragraph 3(1) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.

Procedure on issue of postal ballot papers

41 (1) This paragraph applies where—

(a) the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together, and

(b) a combined postal voters list or proxy postal voters list is produced by virtue of paragraph 22A.

(2) In a case where a postal ballot paper is issued at the same time in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections, a single mark must be placed in the list under the following provisions—

(a) regulation 76(2) of the 2008 Regulations;

(b) paragraph 6(1) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.

(3) In any other case, a mark must be placed in the list under those provisions identifying the poll to which each postal ballot paper issued relates.

Provisions requiring declaration of identity to indicate colours of ballot papers

42 (1) The provisions listed in sub-paragraph (3) do not apply where the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together.

(2) Otherwise, the provisions listed in sub-paragraph (3) have effect as if the words before “the colour” were omitted.

(3) The provisions are—

(a) regulation 76(4) of the 2008 Regulations;

(b) paragraph 6(3) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.

Envelopes

43 (1) This paragraph applies where the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together.

(2) The same covering envelope and ballot paper envelope must be issued to a voter under the following provisions in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections.

(3) The provisions are—

(a) regulation 78 of the 2008 Regulations;

(b) paragraph 8 of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.

(4) The number of each of the postal ballot papers issued must be marked on the ballot paper envelope unless the envelope has a window through which all of the ballot paper numbers are displayed.

(5) The following provisions do not apply—

(a) regulation 78(4) of the 2008 Regulations;

(b) paragraph 8(2) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.

Spoilt postal ballot papers

44 (1) This paragraph applies where—

(a) the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together,

(b) a person returns a spoilt postal ballot paper under regulation 81(1) of the 2008 Regulations or paragraph 12(1) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order, and

(c) a postal ballot paper has been issued to the person in respect of one or more of the other polls.

(2) The spoilt postal ballot paper may not be replaced unless all the postal ballot papers issued to the person are returned.

(3) Where an unspoilt postal ballot paper is returned as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), the 2008 Regulations or Local Elections Order apply to it as if it were a spoilt ballot paper.

Opening of postal voters’ ballot box

45 The following provisions have effect as if for the words after “opened” there were substituted “at the counting of the ballot papers”—

(a) regulation 85(3) of the 2008 Regulations;

(b) paragraph 16(3) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.

Opening of ballot paper envelopes

46 (1) This paragraph applies where the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together.

(2) The following provisions have effect as if after “number” there were inserted “(or one of the numbers)”—

(a) regulation 88(2)(a) of the 2008 Regulations;

(b) paragraph 17B(2)(a) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.

(3) The following provisions have effect as if at the end there were inserted “or, where more than one number appears on the ballot paper envelope, a sufficient number of ballot papers (marking the envelope to indicate the missing ballot paper)”—

(a) regulation 88(2)(c) of the 2008 Regulations;

(b) paragraph 17B(2)(c) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.

Countermand or abandonment of poll for relevant election

47 The following provisions do not apply where the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together—

(a) regulation 90 of the 2008 Regulations;

(b) paragraph 18 of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.

Retention of documents

48 (1) This paragraph applies where the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together.

(2) The Chief Electoral Officer must—

(a) endorse on each of the specified packets a description of its contents, the date of the poll and the name of the area to which the packet relates;

(b) complete a statement as to postal ballot papers in relation to each poll;

(c) retain the packets and statements.

(3) The specified packets—

(a) in relation to the referendum and the Assembly election, are the packets made up under regulations 79, 81(5) and 89 of the 2008 Regulations;

(b) in relation to a local election, are the packets made up under paragraphs 11 and 17C(b) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.

(4) A statement as to postal ballot papers—

(a) in the case of the referendum and the Assembly election, must be in the form set out in Form N in Schedule 3 to the 2008 Regulations;

(b) in the case of a local election, must be in the form set out in Form 2 in Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.

(5) Where—

(a) any covering envelopes are received by the Chief Electoral Officer after the close of the poll,

(b) any envelopes addressed to postal voters are returned as undelivered too late, or

(c) any spoilt postal ballot papers for the referendum or Assembly election are returned too late to enable other postal ballot papers to be issued,

the Chief Electoral Officer must seal those envelopes or postal ballot papers up in a separate packet, endorse the packet as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(a) and retain the packet.

(6) A copy of the completed statements as to postal ballot papers for the referendum and for the Assembly election must be provided to the Electoral Commission.

(7) The following rules apply to any packet or document retained under this paragraph—

(a) rules 51 and 52 of the referendum rules;

(b) rule 56 of the Assembly Elections Rules;

(c) rule 59 of the Local Elections Rules.

(8) In its application by virtue of sub-paragraph (7)(c), rule 59 of the Local Elections Rules has effect as if references to the proper officer of the council were to the Chief Electoral Officer.

(9) This paragraph applies instead of regulation 91 of the 2008 Regulations.

(10) Paragraph 19 of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order has effect as if—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), the reference to paragraphs 11 and 17C(b) were omitted;

(b) in sub-paragraph (2), the references to envelopes were omitted.’.—(Mr Harper.)

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

18:58

Division 108

Ayes: 331

---

Conservative: 277
Liberal Democrat: 53

Noes: 238

---

Labour: 226
Scottish National Party: 5
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Independent: 2
Green Party: 1

Amendments made: 178, page 269, line 29, leave out ‘the spoilt ballot paper(s)’ and insert ‘all the spoilt ballot papers’.

Amendment 179, page 270, line 34 (Form 3A—Form of declaration of identity (to be used for Northern Ireland Assembly election where proceedings on issue and receipt of postal ballot papers not combined)).

Clause 8

Commencement or repeal of amending provisions

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 7, page 6, line 10, at end insert ‘, and

(c) the number of electors casting a vote in the referendum is equal to or greater than 40 per cent. of those entitled to cast such a vote.’.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 197, page 6, line 10, at end insert

‘, and

(c) the number of electors casting a vote in favour of the answer “Yes” is equal to or greater than 25 per cent. of those entitled to cast such a vote.’.

Amendment 8, page 6, line 12, after ‘“No”,’, insert

‘or if the number of electors casting a vote in the referendum is less than 40 per cent. of those entitled to cast such a vote,’.

Amendment 198, page 6, line 12, after ‘“No”’, insert

‘or if the number of electors casting a vote in favour of the answer “Yes” is fewer than 25 per cent. of those entitled to cast such a vote’.

[Mr Cash]

The question of threshold is the second most important issue after the question of whether we agree to this Bill on Second or Third Reading. We have Third Reading to come, and I admit to having voted with some enthusiasm against the Bill on Second Reading, as did a number of my colleagues. We did so because of our inherent objection to the principles that underlie it. I objected to the alternative vote in the wash-up, and I have no reservations about my objections to it. Indeed, I have consistently objected to variants of the proportional representation system ever since I entered the House.

That principled objection has been adopted by Members throughout 150 years of our parliamentary democracy. Many, including Gladstone, Disraeli and even Lloyd George, have objected to the whole idea of undermining the first-past-the-post system. I am reminded of what Disraeli wrote in his novel “Coningsby”. At the time of the Reform Act and the repeal of the corn laws, he wrote in a brief chapter of just one-and-a-half pages:

“There was a great deal of shouting about Conservative principles, but the awkward question naturally arose—what are the principles we are supposed to conserve?”

I believe this Bill is inherently contrary to Conservative principles for the reasons I have given.

Indeed, I would go further and say that I fear that we have not really heard the full reality— the actualité—of what is going on here. Failure in that regard makes it all the more necessary to have a threshold, because if we do not tell the British people the entire truth, which Churchill said we had to do, I fear they will be misled in the referendum campaign. My belief that a threshold is necessary is based in part on the fact that at least that would enable a percentage of the population to be the determining factor as to whether or not the vote is valid.

19:15

My amendment is very modest. It simply calls on the Government to agree that we should insert in the Bill that the result of the referendum will not pass if less than 40% vote in it. That is 40% of those who are eligible to cast a vote. It is about turnout, and 40% is not a large proportion. It is much less than what George Cunningham insisted on in the Scottish devolution proposals that led to the 1979 legislation on that; he insisted on having 40% for a yes vote, whereas I am calling here for only 40% of the electorate. It is a very modest proposal. Is it not a reasonable proposal? Is it not reasonable that the people of this country should be able to have the result of a referendum refused if less than 40% actually cast a vote in it?

There is another serious problem. If a person goes into the ballot box and votes for one person only because he does not want to vote for any of the others—he should have freedom of choice on that—thereafter his vote is discarded. I regard that as fundamentally undemocratic. I see the Minister looking a little puzzled. Well, he can answer my question when he replies. The inherent problem with the whole of this process is that it will have an insidious effect on our democratic system. It is contrary to Conservative principles, and there is no conceivable basis on which these proposals should be passed. I will be voting against the Bill on Third Reading, and I will also press this amendment to a vote.

[Mr Dodds]

In the light of the hon. Gentleman’s strong denunciation of the Bill for the reasons he has given, why has he set the threshold so low, at 40% of turnout?

[Mr Cash]

Actually, I set it at over 60% until we had the shenanigans on, I think, 18 October. We were effectively deprived—I will not say cheated—of the opportunity to debate this matter in our deliberations on clause 6. The chicanery, as I called it, that we engaged in on that occasion resulted in the threshold being negatived under the procedures of the House. I am not going to go back over that territory however, because I am delighted that we are now having an opportunity to debate this topic.

The threshold question is very important and we were previously deprived of an opportunity to discuss it properly because of the programme motion and other activities that I regarded as rather disreputable. I believe the Bill is being severely vitiated, and I think it is very important that the people of this country know that threshold is a key issue. Indeed, threshold and the 40% figure are regarded by all commentators as having significance across the international scene as well as for the United Kingdom.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the international evidence. Italy has a provision that is similar to the one he is proposing and the effect is that those who favour a no vote in referendums simply campaign for them to be boycotted. If the hon. Gentleman’s amendment is successful, will he campaign for a no vote or for people to boycott the referendum?

[Mr Cash]

I will undoubtedly be campaigning for a no vote, but I must also say that I rely very much on the good sense of the British people to decide exactly what they will do, because we trust the people; that is the point.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the problem identified by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) is not one that applies to amendment 197, because it proposes a support threshold, rather than a turnout threshold.

[Stephen Twigg]

indicated assent.

[Mr Chope]

I see the hon. Gentleman nodding. If amendment 197 were to be accepted, at least one in four electors would have to support the proposed change, and that is very different from what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is talking about, which is a turnout threshold.

[Mr Cash]

We were all much more in agreement about this in Committee. All I can say to my hon. Friend is that I believe very strongly, for the reasons I have given and because of the principles I have enunciated, that the 40% threshold is desirable. Incidentally, on the majority provisions prevalent in other democracies in the west, Denmark’s requirement on constitutional change is for 40% of registered voters and, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) implied, Italy has a turnout requirement of 50% of registered voters. Indeed, this country used something not similar, but parallel in the 1979 vote, when the requirement was for 40% of registered voters saying yes.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

All these amendments on thresholds are eminently sensible, but does my hon. Friend agree that there is no chance of their being accepted because the Government will not accept them and that is because there is such profound apathy about this measure among the British people that if any kind of threshold was in place, there would be no chance of the proposal in the referendum being accepted? That is the reality.

[Mr Cash]

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but the problem arises if he simply takes the view that, for one reason or another, either in this House or outside it, there is apathy. I simply refer him back to all the great constitutional problems that have arisen in the past 150 years, when there has also been a problem of apathy, because the constitutional arguments are difficult to get across. I think of this on the basis of, for example, the preference arrangements where a person votes for only one candidate, which will mean that a large number of people will, in effect, be disfranchised—they might be very concerned about that. Some 1.5 million people voted for the UK Independence party and the British National party, and one might say that they may well not vote for anybody else. The other thing, which goes with that, is that if one is faced with a choice of Liberal and Labour, there may be an increased likelihood of people voting Liberal Democrat.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Cash]

Wait a minute. That is so for the very simple reason that many people have a visceral hatred of both parties and therefore think, wrongly, that they are voting for another party that will do them some good—we have a different view about that.

I regard this as a lambs-to-the-slaughter Bill—this is why I insist on the threshold—because of what would happen under these arrangements to a number of Conservative MPs if they were to get less than 50% of the vote, as they did in the last election. I have calculated that 60 Conservative MPs had Liberal Democrats in second place. My sense of friendship for my colleagues suggests to me that putting as many as 60 seats on the line is a very high price to pay for the purposes of something so central to the coalition. The figures I have show that those who would be affected range from my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), who got 34.9% of the vote, to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who got 49.7%. All those Members would be largely at risk, although some more so than others, and something will depend on the boundary changes. I cannot understand how my party can make arrangements that take those lambs to the slaughter. This is extraordinary and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s reply.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman’s point. I agree that turkeys do not usually vote for Christmas. Does he perhaps think that his leader has a plan for his party that he is obviously not party to?

[Mr Cash]

I have voted consistently against this Bill and I will continue to do so, for the reasons that I have given. It behoves some of us to act both with consistency and in principle against things that were not in our manifesto—in fact, it is the opposite because our manifesto declared that we were not in favour of the alternative vote. Furthermore, there was complete silence on the question of threshold until we received the Bill.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman is probably one of the longest-serving parliamentarians. Will he clarify whether he believes that the House of Lords should be bound to follow the manifesto commitment convention or, given that this provision was not in his party’s manifesto, that the House of Lords is perfectly entitled to disregard that convention?

[Mr Cash]

That is a very good question.

My final point is that leaving this ultimately House of Commons issue—it is about voting here in the House of Commons—to the House of Lords is absolutely disgraceful. This issue should not be resolved in the House of Lords. I have heard a number of my hon. Friends, for whom I have the greatest respect on most matters, churning this out and I simply think it is unacceptable. This is a matter for the House of Commons; it is about our electors, our constituencies, our constitution and the freedom of choice at the ballot box. I utterly reject this Bill and I utterly reject the idea of AV. I strongly urge hon. Members to vote with me on the threshold provision that stands in my name.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) knows that I have great respect for him. He is adamantine in his positions, holding to them with consistency and firmness, and I respect him for it enormously. Often I disagree with him, but I almost entirely agree with him on this Bill, and I also think that he has made a good case this evening. He referred to Conservative principles, so I wish to nick a few words that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) reminded some Welsh colleagues of this morning in Westminster Hall. As he said, Evelyn Waugh asked what the point of a Conservative Government is if it does not turn the clock back, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Stone will agree with that.

However, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about thresholds in referendums because, broadly, they are not a good idea. As these amendments have shown, it is difficult to know whether the threshold should relate to the turnout—the number of people who vote—or the turnout of those who express a preference. In other words, should it leave out or include those who spoiled their ballot paper? Alternatively, should it relate to those who vote yes to change? Obviously, in countries that have written constitutions all this tends to be laid down; it is one of the key elements that is written down. If someone wants to change any element of the constitution in Germany, Spain or many other countries, they have to obtain a fixed percentage—normally greater than an absolute majority—to be able to effect change. In the German constitution, any change has to be given a successful mandate after two subsequent general elections. I do not believe that that is the way we have tended to do things in the British system.

[Mr Leigh]

I am curious to know why the Labour party takes the attitude it does. Is it because it is, in principle, opposed to thresholds or is it because it is scarred by its experience in 1979, when the referendum would have gone through but for the threshold, which ushered in the vote of confidence, 18 years of Tory role and all the rest of it? Does Labour have a principled objection or is it just history?

[Chris Bryant]

The scars of history can give us principles—that is the truth of it. That may well apply to the Conservative party too in relation to some of the things it has had to change in recent years. I point out that if there were to be a threshold for election to this House or to council seats, especially in council by-elections, there would undoubtedly be some occasions when people would not be returned, because voters might choose to do precisely what happens, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) has said, in some countries where there is a threshold.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way in a moment. In some countries that have thresholds, people are persuaded to boycott. If people felt that they did not like any of the candidates, they might decide that the best way not to return a candidate was to boycott the election.

[Mrs Laing]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I had offers from Labour Members, so, tempting as the hon. Lady’s offer is, I am going to give way—

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

rose—

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

rose—

[John Mann]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I am not so sure actually. No, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer).

[Graham Stringer]

I cannot imagine why my hon. Friend is not so sure about that. I would be grateful if he told us where in the Labour manifesto—or anywhere else in Labour party policy—there is a commitment against thresholds. More importantly, is not the serious argument for the Labour party, the Conservative party or any other party in this Chamber the question of what we would do if there was only a 15% turnout? What would the Government do and what would the House of Commons do? Surely we could not accept that.

19:30

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is no fixed determined policy that we are completely and utterly in all cases implacably opposed to thresholds. Nor, for that matter, is there a belief that we ardently should have thresholds. However, I suspect that the hon. Member for Stone has tabled this amendment in some sense as a wrecking amendment, in that he does not really want AV, and that is part of his intention.

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I shall not give way to him, because there is very little time for debate. I accept that that might not be his intention, but none the less it might be the result of such a thing.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I ought to give way, in fairness, to one of the hon. Ladies opposite.

[Dr Wollaston]

Does the hon. Gentleman have any threshold at which he thinks we would be completely without any validity at all? Perhaps he would like to suggest a threshold.

[Chris Bryant]

I was actually trying not to suggest a threshold. The hon. Lady is right in one sense, of course. I hope that this might appease my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton as regards some of what he said. There is a complexity about the referendum that we might have next May, because we might have very differential turnout in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England.

If, for instance, there were to be a very low turnout in England that returned a no vote and a very high turnout in the other places—there is a Scottish parliamentary election, in Northern Ireland there are two other sets of elections and in Wales there is the Assembly election at the same time, and in Wales and Scotland those feel in many senses like general elections—returned significant yes votes, people might start to question the validity of what we were doing. This is all the more important because the referendum is not just an advisory referendum—as referendums have always been in the past—but an implementing referendum. In other words, if there is a yes vote, it comes into law. It happens, and the next general election will be held on the basis of the alternative vote.

I am not convinced by the arguments that are being advanced in favour of thresholds. I personally will be voting yes in the referendum. I do not believe that there should be a referendum, but there is a legitimate argument that others might want to consider about whether the fact that we are combining the polls will produce a differential turnout in different parts of the country that might make a necessity of a threshold.

[Mr David]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I think that a Welsh colleague is desirous of my attention.

[Mr David]

As well as making a powerful comment—and judgment, really—on the proposal for a threshold, is my hon. Friend not harking back to what we talked about earlier, making a convincing case not to have the elections in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on the same day or to have the AV vote on the same day?

[Chris Bryant]

Absolutely. As somebody who supports alternative vote, which I know my hon. Friend does not, and as somebody who will want to see a yes vote in the referendum, I find that one of the most depressing things—I think this is true of others in the Chamber who want to see change to the electoral system—is that the way in which the Government and, in particular, the Deputy Prime Minister have proceeded with this has made it more difficult for many to advocate that cause and to push for reform. Now, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing)—

[Mrs Laing]

indicated dissent.

[Chris Bryant]

She no longer wants me.

As the hon. Member for Stone said earlier, two different thresholds are proposed. One is that there will be a 25% yes threshold—that is, that we would have to secure 25% of the electorate to count for a yes, and that can be found in amendment 197. The other is the turnout referendum of 40% that the hon. Gentleman has already proposed. I think that it would be inappropriate to move forward with either of the two thresholds and I urge hon. Members to vote against them.

[John Mann]

Like my hon. Friend, I am a supporter—and always have been—of AV. He mentioned the Labour party, and of course the Labour party has no policy, but has not the Labour movement long held the principle that in trade union rule changes there should be a threshold precisely because rule changes are irreversible, in that they must be implemented? Should not the principle of a threshold mean that the Government should be looking for significantly more than 326 votes on Third Reading tonight to demonstrate any kind of support for this rotten Bill?

[Chris Bryant]

The difficulty about thresholds in the Labour movement is that, for instance, I suppose one could have said that there should be a threshold for the election of candidates for the Labour party—or, for that matter, for the leader of the Labour party. I think that that would be inappropriate. When we have an election, we in the Labour movement have always proceeded on the basis of alternative vote—[Interruption.] To be fair, in the past, for a brief period, we used a single vote but then there was a run-off that was used for several years. For several years now—for several decades, in fact—we have used the alternative vote to select candidates when there is a single member standing. When there are multiple members, we use first past the post. The point that I want to make is that I do not think that it is appropriate to bring in a threshold at this time, but I fully understand that there are others who say that because of the way in which the Government are pushing forward with this legislation and because it is an implementing referendum, a threshold would be appropriate.

I think I can see the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) cogitating, so I shall give way to him.

[Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I was not cogitating—I was bemused by the rationality of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. If I understood it correctly, he was saying that there was a level of turnout that would not authorise, essentially, so dramatic a change in the public mind. If it does not have the authority of a certain percentage enabling us to claim that it was the will of the people, at what level does he think that should be set? There must surely be a level for such a profound constitutional change to be authorised, as was suggested with reference to the union movement, for instance.

[Chris Bryant]

To be honest, I would prefer us to have a written constitution in which all those elements were laid out, but that is not what is before us tonight. One could go around this Chamber and see on what proportion of the vote of the total electorate any one of us was elected—after all, the proposition in amendment 197 is that one would have to be elected by a proportion of the electorate. I think that that would be inappropriate. We have a system in this country where someone either wins or loses the vote. There would be a strong point in arguing that this should not be an implementing referendum, but merely an advisory referendum. The House would therefore be able to take a decision on the basis of what turnout there had or had not been. I would hate to see the campaign simply to boycott the referendum that would almost certainly arise from those who are opposed to a change.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I am very keen to abandon the Dispatch Box as soon as I possibly can, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan).

[Mark Durkan]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the impact of thresholds on referendums—remember that we are told that the whole issue of constituency changes in this Bill is about creating equal votes—is that they create unequal votes? Those who do not vote—even those who do not vote because they are dead—have more influence and more say than those who go to the bother of voting. Is not the real issue that people want to learn the lesson from Irish referendums? As well as creating confusion and saying, “If you don’t know, vote no,” they will say in some places, “If you don’t know, don’t vote.”

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend made that point in a previous discussion, and he is absolutely right. We should have a straightforward system where people fight to win their side of the argument. They win that side of the argument by getting people past the ballot box to vote either yes or no. That is why I am, broadly speaking, opposed to referendums.

Let me issue one tiny note of caution, which comes from the problems that the Government are giving us by combining the polls on 5 May. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) said earlier, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether people are bright enough or stupid enough to understand two different propositions that might be put to them—the voters are perfectly intelligent enough to be able to do that—but we will have different turnouts in different parts of the country, which will cause a significant problem. When my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) said earlier that a no vote in the referendum would be a significant problem for the Deputy Prime Minister, the Deputy Leader of the House said from a sedentary position, “No, it wouldn’t really.” So the cat is out of the bag: the Deputy Prime Minister could not care less whether the referendum is successful—whether it leads to a yes or no vote. I think, as do many Members on both sides of the House who would really like a reform of the electoral system, that that betrays the cause that many people had thought essential to the Liberal party. That is why many of us have a profound suspicion that the Deputy Prime Minister is in this less for sound principle than for self-advancement.

[Mrs Laing]

By tabling amendments 197 and 198 I am again trying to help the Government. The Minister made it clear when we tried to debate this matter in Committee on 18 October that he wanted a debate and a vote on the vital issue of thresholds. He, we and the House were denied that opportunity in Committee so I hope that I am being helpful in giving him the opportunity to debate it now. Alas, however, because very long speeches were made by Opposition Members earlier, we do not have long to debate this matter.

The amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and I submitted in Committee was for a turnout threshold not of 60%, as I have been derided in the press for suggesting, but of 50%. [Interruption.] Not by the shadow Minister, no—by The Daily Telegraph. There is a surprise! I would never have suggested 60%. However, I have listened to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and I have listened, surprising as it might seem, to the Deputy Prime Minister.

[Graham Stringer]

Where is he?

[Mrs Laing]

He is never here for these debates—never at all. The Minister has entirely taken the responsibility for all this and the Deputy Prime Minister has been here only for the first half hour of Second Reading—that is all—and I do not suppose we will see him at any other point in the debate. I have listened to him however, and he has said, as the hon. Member for Rhondda has said this evening, that it would not be fair to count potential electors who do not vote as no votes. The hon. Member for Rhondda has also said that those boycotting the poll would be counted as no votes, and I entirely accept that.

[Mr Shepherd]

This is a very important point. There was an old rule right through history that with proposals for a big change, those who did not vote were expressing that they were satisfied with the existing arrangements. Does my hon. Friend agree that if one believes in change, one votes for change, and that if one does not believe in change there is no incentive to do so because one is consenting to the existing arrangements?

[Mrs Laing]

That is the crux of the matter. People who want a change in our constitution will go out on 5 May—I suppose that it will be 5 May—and vote for change. People who do not go out to vote for change can reasonably be presumed not to want change. However, I accept that the issue could be made clearer, rather than allowing the argument about boycotts and no votes, so we have tabled amendments 197 and 198, which would require 25% of those who are entitled to vote—just a quarter—to vote yes for the referendum to be binding. That is a very modest requirement and a very low threshold.

19:44

[Thomas Docherty]

My maths is not fantastic, but does the hon. Lady accept that she is talking about a turnout of up to 49.9% with 25% voting yes and 24% voting no, and that many constituencies do not get such turnouts at general elections?

[Mrs Laing]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point. A referendum is not an election; it is a completely different part of the democratic process. The hon. Member for Rhondda and others have compared turnouts in general and local elections, in which voters choose between three, four or five candidates, with referendums, but they are not the same. If they were, a referendum would be called an election. A referendum is a plebiscite. In a referendum, the people are consulted on a particular issue on a yes or no vote; that is not the same as an election and comparisons between the two regarding turnout or other aspects are therefore irrelevant. The simple, inescapable principle is that a change to the voting system is a significant constitutional change; that is why the Government have decided to have a referendum—and rightly so. The outcome of a referendum to change our constitution must be, and must be seen to be, decisive. It must command confidence and respect and it should not be challengeable. If there is a derisory turnout, the result will not command respect or confidence. Indeed, it is worse that that.

[Mr Leigh]

Is not the virtue of my hon. Friend’s amendments, compared with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), that hers would not encourage abstention? With hers, everyone who wanted AV would go and vote for it and everyone who did not would vote against it.

[Mrs Laing]

I thank my hon. Friend; that is exactly the point of my amendments on having a threshold for those voting yes. Any constitutional change that will have an enormous effect on the composition of the House and of Parliament ought to be brought about in a way that commands confidence and respect. In tabling my modest amendments, I am trying once more to help the Government.

What if the referendum takes place and 15% of people vote yes? In a local election, we normally get about 29% and, as the hon. Member for Rhondda has rightly said, there is likely to be differential turnout throughout the country, which is likely to add to the confusion and the likelihood that the result of the referendum will not command respect and will be questionable. If the outcome does not command respect—if only 15% of those entitled to vote actually go out and vote for constitutional change—that result will be derisory and will mean that all future general elections under the AV system will be open to question. I have every confidence that the British people will have the sense to vote against AV, but just in case they do not—this is a serious matter—I put it to the House that if 15% or so of the population vote for a constitutional change that brings about a new AV system for elections to the House, the entire validity of our electoral system will be open to question and the very integrity of our democracy will be undermined.

[Mr Harper]

The amendments moved by my hon. Friends seek to specify certain thresholds. They are very different, as has emerged from the debate. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) would impose a simple turnout threshold. At least 40% of those entitled to vote would have to cast a vote, or the result would not be valid.

I should take this opportunity to put my hon. Friend right on the form of the alternative vote system that we propose in the Bill. I do not know if he was present for the debates that we had on it. His concern, I think he said, was that people would be forced to vote for all the candidates on the ballot paper, and if they did not, their vote would not be valid. He referred to some parties for which people would not want to vote. I can reassure him—

[Mr Cash]

I did not say that people would be forced to vote. I depended for my argument on the freedom of choice to decide that they might want to vote for only one person.

[Mr Harper]

I listened carefully to my hon. Friend. I think he said that if people chose to vote for only one person, their vote would then not count.

[Mr Cash]

No.

[Mr Harper]

Okay, but under our system of optional preferential, we are not forcing anybody to vote for anyone. Voters can vote for one candidate, all the candidates or any number in between, so the form of the alternative vote that we are putting to the electorate next year does not raise any of the concerns that my hon. Friend touched on. I am sorry if I overstated his argument.

The reason we have not specified a threshold in the Bill is, as a number of hon. Members said, that we want to respect the will of the people who vote in the referendum, without any qualifications. The argument against my hon. Friend’s amendment is that specifying a threshold for voter turnout—on this I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg)—is that it makes every abstention effectively a no vote.

People may choose to abstain, but the amendment would create an incentive for people who favour a no vote to abstain. So people would not campaign, as they rightly should, for only yes or no votes in the referendum. We would have people campaigning actively for voters not to participate. We debated this a little on Second Reading, and as I said in my speech then, I do not think that is right. We need to encourage participation in the referendum. We want people to take part, and putting in a rule that encourages at least one side to campaign actively for voters not to take part would do our democracy a disservice.

I am not concerned as some colleagues are about what the turnout will be. As we have said in previous debates, both in Committee and in the House, there are elections for the devolved Administrations—for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly—but there are also elections scheduled next year for 81% of England. The percentage turnout in English local elections varies, but it is usually in the mid to high 30s at least. I am confident that with the additional publicity and the awareness of the referendum, and the fact that it is an important decision, we will indeed get a good turnout.

Previous referendums in this country have either had good turnouts or, where the turnouts have not been that high, they have produced decisive clear results from the electorate, so I do not share that concern. We should not go against our tradition and practice in this country by setting turnout thresholds.

Let me now focus on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing). She is right to say that it proposes a completely different, outcome-specific threshold. It is worth saying to colleagues on the Government Benches who support the Government’s proposals and respect the coalition agreement that my hon. Friend’s amendment is not compatible with what we set out in the coalition agreement, which was a simple majority referendum, without an outcome-specific threshold. Colleagues who are reconciled to a referendum being held should bear that in mind if they are tempted to vote for my hon. Friend’s amendment.

[Mr Chope]

Does my hon. Friend realise the irony of what he has just said? The Liberal Democrat MPs required two thirds support for entering the coalition. Surely it ill behoves them now to suggest that we can change the constitution of this country on a much smaller vote?

[Mr Harper]

I do not think my hon. Friend’s point holds a great deal of water. I think I am right in saying that the decision of the Liberal Democrats, although I am not an expert on their internal party mechanisms, was unanimous or almost unanimous. That does not take us an awful lot further forward.

[Mrs Laing]

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out to me that I have made a mistake. I have said in the past that I respect the coalition agreement, and I would not go against it. I understand what he has just said about the exact terms of the coalition agreement and amendment 197. I therefore will not press that amendment to a Division this evening, as it would be inconsistent of me to do so—but of course I will then have to support my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash).

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not think I have ever been quite so persuasive with any of my arguments as to persuade one of my hon. Friends not to press an amendment. [Interruption.] I hear the opposition, so I shall put that one away and take it as a victory.

My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest made it clear to the House that she does not think that referendums should be compared to elections in any way, but it is worth saying to hon. Members that if we were to adopt a similar process for elections, the House would be spared the services not of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) but of, among others, Mr Deputy Speaker’s colleague the right hon. Member for Bristol South (Dawn Primarolo), the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton), who is the Opposition Chief Whip, and—most tragically of all for our side of the House—my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who in his by-election on 10 July 2008 sadly polled only 24.4% of the electorate. We on the Government Benches would be sadly lacking if we had been deprived of his services.

[Mr Leigh]

I am now totally confused. Generally, I find it is a big mistake to attend debates, because one gets tempted to vote against the Government. Is my hon. Friend the Minister saying that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) is contrary to the coalition agreement, but that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is not?

[Mr Harper]

No, the amendment is not contrary to what is in the coalition agreement, but we do not agree with it, and I have set out clearly why. We do not, in this country, have a tradition of turnout thresholds. The one experience that we have had of an outcome-specific threshold was in a Scottish devolution referendum in 1979. That threshold was put there to deny Scottish devolution.

That leads us to the heart of the argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest made it clear, as she has done throughout, that she was confident of the decision that the British people would come to—but then she said she wanted to introduce her amendment, just in case. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone, in a revealing response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, said that we should trust the people. That is an expression that I used in my Second Reading speech, and it is right.

There are different views in both parts of the coalition and in the Opposition parties, but whatever our views, we should not set artificial limits that encourage people not to participate in the referendum. Whichever side of the argument we are on, we should have the courage of our convictions. We should get the Bill—or the part of it that we agree with—on to the statute book, make our case, engage with the people, explain to them the rights and wrongs of the cases, and trust the people, as the hon. Gentleman said, to make the right decision, to come out and vote, and to make a clear decision. Then the House will be able to proceed. That is the best way, so I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends not to press their amendments—and if do they press them, I urge the House to vote against them.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

19:59

Division 109

Ayes: 31

---

Conservative: 18
Labour: 8
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Independent: 1

Noes: 549

---

Conservative: 264
Labour: 219
Liberal Democrat: 54
Scottish National Party: 6
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

20:12

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 1 November).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Schedule 2

Rules for conduct of the referendum

Amendments made: 22, page 30, line 41, leave out ‘regulations’ and insert ‘postal voting provisions’.

Amendment 23, page 31, line 8, leave out ‘regulations’ and insert ‘postal voting provisions’.

Amendment 24, page 36, line 29, leave out ‘regulations’ and insert ‘postal voting provisions’.

Amendment 25, page 48, line 15, leave out ‘and Wales or Scotland’.

Amendment 26, page 48, line 17, leave out ‘regulations’ and insert ‘postal voting provisions’.

Amendment 27, page 48, line 21, leave out ‘regulations’ and insert ‘postal voting provisions’.

Amendment 28, page 48, line 26, leave out ‘regulations’ and insert ‘postal voting provisions’.

Amendment 29, page 53, line 42, leave out ‘regulations’ and insert ‘postal voting provisions’.

Amendment 30, page 56, line 38, at end insert—

‘“the relevant postal voting provisions”—

(c) in relation to England, means Part 5 of the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/341) as applied by Schedule 4 to this Act;

(d) in relation to Wales, means Schedule 3 to the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007 (S.I. 2007/236) as applied by Part 2 of Schedule 6 to this Act;

(e) in relation to Scotland, means Schedule 4 to the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010 as applied by Part 2 of Schedule 7 to this Act;

(f) in relation to Northern Ireland, means Part 5 of the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1741) as applied by Schedule 4 to this Act.’.—(Mr Harper.)

Schedule 4

Application to the referendum of existing provisions

Amendments made: 31, page 104, line 15, after ‘Wales’ insert ‘or Scotland’.

Amendment 32, page 105, line 30, after ‘referendum’ insert ‘(subject to sub-paragraphs (3A) and (3B))’.

Amendment 33, page 106, line 5, at end insert—

‘(3A) Part 5 of the England and Wales Regulations does not apply for the purposes of the referendum in so far as it is taken together with the poll for the Welsh Assembly general election under section 4(2).

(3B) Part 5 of the Scotland Regulations does not apply for the purposes of the referendum in so far as it is taken together with the poll for the Scottish parliamentary election under section 4(3).’.

Amendment 34, page 115, line 18, leave out ‘In the England and Wales Regulations,’.

Amendment 35, page 115, line 22, leave out ‘In the England and Wales Regulations,’.

Amendment 36, page 115, leave out lines 25 to 30.

Amendment 37, page 117, line 7, leave out ‘In the England and Wales Regulations,’.

Amendment 38, page 117, line 27, leave out ‘In the England and Wales Regulations,’.

Amendment 39, page 117, line 30, leave out ‘In the England and Wales Regulations,’.

Amendment 40, page 117, line 34, leave out ‘In the England and Wales Regulations,’.

Amendment 41, page 118, leave out lines 2 to 25.

Amendment 42, page 130, line 28, before ‘For’ insert—

‘For “a parliamentary election” substitute “the referendum”.’.

Amendment 43, page 132, line 7, at end insert—

After paragraph (4) insert—

“(5) Where an envelope opened in accordance with paragraph (1) contains a declaration of identity (whether separate or not), the counting officer must place a mark in the marked copy of the postal voters list or the proxy postal voters list in a place corresponding to the number of the elector to denote that a postal vote has been returned.

(6) A mark made under paragraph (5) must be distinguishable from and must not obscure the mark made under regulation 76.

(7) As soon as practicable after the last covering envelope has been opened, the counting officer must make up into a packet the copy of the postal voters list and the proxy postal voters list that has been marked in accordance with paragraph (5) and must seal the packet.”’.—(Mr Harper.)

Schedule 9

Control of loans etc to permitted participants

Amendment made: 180, page 276, leave out lines 12 to 16.—(Mr Harper.)

Schedule 10

The alternative vote system: further amendments

Amendment made: 181, page 289, leave out lines 29 and 30 and insert—

(a) there are—

(i) two or more candidates with fewer votes than the others but an equal number to each other, or

(ii) three or more candidates, or remaining candidates, all with the same number of votes, and’.—(Mr Harper.)

Third Reading

20:17

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

First, let me welcome the scrutiny that the Bill has now undergone. I know that there has been vigorous debate on all the Bill’s provisions, which is only right for a measure of such importance not just to this House but to the people we represent. It was also right that we should spend eight days on the Floor of the House debating the Bill, and that the House should have the opportunity, which it has taken, to divide on the key provisions before it goes for consideration to the other place.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

rose—

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I should like to make a bit of progress.

The Bill has been amended during its passage through this House. The Government accepted the Electoral Commission’s findings on the question—something that found support right across the House. The Bill also now includes detailed provision for the combination of the referendum with the other elections on 5 May, making the poll easier to run and allowing savings to be made.

Many Members have drawn attention to the constitutional importance of the changes that we propose: changes to deliver more equal constituencies, a House of Commons of reasonable size, and a referendum to give people a choice over their voting system. The Government recognise the significance of these measures. We also recognise that Members are not simply being asked to vote on these matters in the abstract, but that the changes have real consequences for Members of this House and for their constituents.

[Thomas Docherty]

rose—

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I give way.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister, who has joined us for the first time after eight days of debate. Can he confirm to the House whether he read the Gould report personally before he picked the date of 5 May for the referendum?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I read reports of the Gould report. I did not read every single word of the Gould report itself, but I read enough to tell me that it conclusively showed that the problem with the combination of votes in Scotland arose because of the unique nature of the ballot papers in those local elections, which were extremely confusing to voters who were voting in two elections at the same time. By contrast, next May I think it will be uncomplicated for people to vote in devolved elections, in local elections in England, and on a simple yes or no answer to the referendum question.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I would like to make a little progress.

At the heart of this Bill are some simple principles. It is right that constituencies are more fairly sized, so that the weight of a person’s vote does not depend on where they live. It is right that we reverse the unintended trend that has seen this House grow in size and cap its membership at a more reasonable number. It is right for people to have their say on the extremely important question of which system voters use to elect MPs, and crucially, it is right that, at a time when people’s trust in Parliament has been tested to destruction, we act to renew our institutions.

[Mr Cash]

I am most grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister for giving way and hope not to detach him too long from his speech. Would he be good enough to explain to me, in the light of the announcement earlier today on votes for prisoners, whether under the Bill prisoners who are currently disqualified from voting in parliamentary elections will be unable to vote in the referendum? Do the Government propose to change that to bring it into line with today’s announcement?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), explained this afternoon, we have made no decision on the matter other than to state the obvious point, which was first stated by the previous Government, that we will need to act in accordance with the law. We are still debating exactly how and when to do that, and we will make announcements as soon as we can.

I am sure I do not need to remind Members of the damage that was done by the expenses scandal, which lifted the lid on a culture of secrecy, arrogance and remoteness right at the heart of the democracy. The coalition Government are determined to turn the page on that political culture and give people a political system that they can trust. That is why we have set out a programme for wholesale political reform. We are starting with this Bill, which, through its commitment to fairness and choice, corrects fundamental injustices in how people elect their MPs.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister makes the important point that we need to ensure that we reconnect with communities. How will the removal of public inquiries, and therefore of the right of individuals and communities to make oral representations on the most profound boundary changes for 150 years, reconnect Parliament with individuals and communities?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill provides for a significant extension—actually a tripling—of the time during which people can make written representations.

[Ian Lucas]

indicated dissent.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman might shake his head and dismiss the idea of people making written representations, but they will not end up in the bin. They are an effective means by which people can make their views heard, and I am sure he will take up that opportunity if he wishes to.

Combined with our other reforms—fixed-term Parliaments, a new power of recall, and reform of the other place—the Bill will help us close the gap between people and politics, ensuring that our institutions meet expectations and are fit for a modern 21st-century democracy.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I do not doubt the Deputy Prime Minister’s sincerity, but he used to be very keen on reducing the number of Ministers in this place. Why is he not so keen on that measure now?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

There may well be a case for looking at the number of Ministers when the size of the House of Commons is reduced, but that is not happening now. It would happen only in the next Parliament. We would need to keep it under constant review, and—dare I say it?—future Governments might wish to act upon that idea. I do not dispute at all the principle that as the Commons is reduced in size, so should the number of Ministers be reduced.

I understand that some Members continue to have specific concerns about the detail of the Bill. That was clear, for example, during the thorough debate on the date of the referendum. I know that Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in particular continue to worry about the implications of combining different polls on 5 May, but I believe that our decision is right and that voters are able to distinguish between elections to local government or devolved institutions and a straightforward yes or no question on a completely different issue. However, the Government remain alive to the concerns and will continue to work with the Electoral Commission and administrators across the UK to help ensure that combined elections run smoothly.

[Mr MacNeil]

One of the major concerns about having elections on the same day is that the media, rather than the voters, may be unable to cope. We have all accepted, both in Committee and on Report, that that is where the difficulty lies. There is a problem with the registration of the yes and no sides of the campaign. How will that affect access to the media, particularly in the run-up to Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland elections? That is an important consideration.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, registered and designated organisations in the referendum campaign will have access to broadcast time. I do not see why that should make it in any way impossible for voters—they are the ones who count—to distinguish between their choices in the devolved elections and in the referendum contest.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Members are jumping up with great excitement, but if I can make a little headway I will give way in a minute.

On the boundary review, I recognise that some Members are nervous about the implications for the areas that they represent. We have taken those concerns seriously. For example, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, visited the Isle of Wight to meet people with views on both sides of the argument. However, the Government’s view, and the position that has withstood sustained debate, is simple. Fairness demands constituencies that are basically equal in size. Of course the boundary commissions must have some discretion to vary from absolute equality to take account of local factors, and the rules set out in the Bill provide flexibility in that regard, but there can be no justification for maintaining the current inequality between constituencies and voters across the country.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I entirely agree, of course, with the principle that we should have more equal constituencies, but not the regimentally and statistically equalised ones proposed in the Bill. That will create homogenised, pasteurised constituencies of bland uniformity. If the Bill returns from the Lords with amendments to establish a reasonable balance between equalisation and a recognition of tradition, culture and local authority boundaries, will the Government resist the changes?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I admire my hon. Friend’s commitment to his constituency, of course, and he argues his case with great conviction, but I disagree with the characterisation of the Bill as an attempt to “pasteurise” constituencies. After all, one third of the Members in the House already represent constituencies within the size quota that we are setting down, so it is hardly a revolution. It is very much an evolution, building on arrangements that are already in place.

My hon. Friend talks about the rigidity of the constituency size set out, but there will actually be a 5% margin either side of an ideal size. As he also knows—I have discussed it with him previously—it builds on a provision already present in existing legislation. The Bill merely prioritises the matter in a way that is not currently the case. So no, we would not be minded to accept amendments that reopened the fundamental question of fairness and equality in how constituencies are drawn up.

I urge Members to remember that if the Bill passes, as I hope it does, it will be then that the real decisions on constituency boundaries begin. They will be up to the independent boundary commissions, and Members and communities will have plenty of opportunity to have their say.

[Mark Tami]

Does the Deputy Prime Minister not think his argument would be stronger if he did not make an exception for a certain number of seats in Scotland, to his own political advantage? They are being treated completely differently, and without the equal value that he pretends to believe in.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman may know, two constituencies are treated differently from others. One is held by the Scottish National party. [Interruption.] No, two. The other one is a Liberal Democrat constituency. Both constituencies have been recognised in previous regulations and legislation as having a unique status. I know that the hon. Gentleman has about 60,000 people in his constituency. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister himself has looked up the statistic, so we are talking about a very good authority. Other colleagues represent 20,000 more voters. Surely that cannot be right.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Before apoplexy breaks out on the Opposition Benches, let me try to bring this to a close.

Where there has been a reasoned case for amendment, we have accepted the arguments and acted. The Bill is almost ready to go to the other place for further scrutiny, which will undoubtedly add to the debates that we have been having here. Before that, the Commons will have its final say tonight.

[Mr David]

rose—

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I will not give way, because I want to conclude.

The elected Chamber will, I hope, agree these extremely important changes to the very elections that put us here. Fair constituencies and choice for people over their voting system will prove unambiguously that the House of Commons is dedicated to real and meaningful reform, including of the very system that put us here.

20:30

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. He may have missed the contribution made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who reminded us that the first and only time that he graced the Chamber with his presence was on Second Reading on 6 September 2010. He reminds us of Alfred Hitchcock in those classic films in which he has a walk-on part and then comes back at the end for a bow. However, unlike Hitchcock, the right hon. Gentleman brought a posse with him for fear of being lynched—lynched by either that lot, the Liberal Democrats, or that other lot, the Conservative Back Benchers, never mind us lot in the Opposition.

Ironically, the Deputy Prime Minister, who was so keen on this Bill and who directed it, has made no attempt to play a role in it. The real reason, of course, is that he is not the architect. The architect is his chum the Prime Minister, who has just walked out, now that he has seen that his friend is safe.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

As the right hon. Gentleman is less than overwhelmed by the prospect of this Bill, would he care to say which Hitchcock film he has most in mind? Is it “Vertigo”, “Sabotage” or “Psycho”?

[Sadiq Khan]

It is all the films that have a bad ending. Most right hon. and hon. Members will agree—some publicly and others privately—that as things stand, this is a deeply unsatisfactory piece of legislation. It has its genesis in the party political horse-trading that characterised the coalition talks and which is all too evident. I remind the House and those in the other place of what this Bill means unless the other place overturns some of the clauses passed here: a referendum on AV on 5 May 2011, which was not in the manifesto of either of the coalition parties, so there is no mandate for it; a reduction of elected Members in this House from 650 to 600, which was not in the manifesto of either coalition party, so there is no mandate for it; the abolition of public inquiries for boundary commission proposals, which was in neither of the coalition parties’ manifestos, so there is no mandate for it; holding the next general election with new boundaries based on purely mathematical formulae, save for two exceptions, of 600 seats, which again was in neither of the coalition parties’ manifestos, so there is no mandate for it.

We will soon have before us a new Bill that will set in stone the date of the next general election—5 May 2015. Once again, that was in neither of the coalition parties’ manifestos and there is no mandate for it. The Prime Minister and his chum, the Deputy Prime Minister, will sell these reforms in public as democratising measures that herald the dawn of a new politics. Behind closed doors, however, they offer a different rationale, as was revealed by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field). On the day of Second Reading—the last time the Deputy Prime Minister came to this Chamber for this Bill—the hon. Gentleman said that

“the current proposals for AV and the reduction in number of parliamentary constituencies are being promoted by party managers as an expedient way to prevent our principal political opponents from recapturing office.”——[Official Report, 6 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 47.]

I know that the Whips have kept the hon. Gentleman out of the Chamber this evening.

This Bill is the product of a straightforward political bargain. In exchange for a referendum on the alternative vote, which the Conservatives opposed, the Liberal Democrats signed up to a review of constituency boundaries that the Conservatives favoured. As such, it has come to be regarded by the leadership as an unalterable document that must be accepted totally and unquestioningly.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

Is all of this peroration meant to defend the 4.2% built-in bias for the Labour party in elections? Is that what this is about?

[Sadiq Khan]

The hon. Gentleman, who is a friend, has been absent for the past few days, and I am not quite sure what point he makes.

Sensible, neutral suggestions that have commanded support on both sides of the House, such as the proposal to ensure that the Executive do not grow disproportionately powerful as the legislature is reduced in size, have been dismissed. As any independent observer who has followed the passage of the Bill to date will readily admit, that unbending attitude deprives the Bill of the adjustments and improvements it sorely needs.

The scrutiny process has suffered from being rushed. It is a convention that major constitutional matters are debated here, but it is also a convention that they are given sufficient time.

[Mr Cash]

On constitutional conventions, is it not the case that in many countries, including ours, Bills of this kind are subject to thresholds because they ensure that enough people have voted? On the abstention argument, do the Opposition believe that people have a right not to vote? Otherwise, do they believe that voting ought to be compulsory?

[Sadiq Khan]

The problem with the hon. Gentleman’s propositions is that the manifestos of neither coalition party contained any of the ingredients of the Bill, let alone thresholds. That is one reason why, like sheep, they have voted against proposals for more accountability, both in Committee and on Report. Any independent observer who has followed the passage of this legislation, including the Deputy Prime Minister, who might have had a chance to read some of the Hansard reports, will readily admit that that unbending attitude deprives the Bill of the adjustments and improvements it sorely needs.

Let me give some examples of Bills that have gone through the House with proper debate and scrutiny. The Government of Wales Act 1998 was taken on the Floor of the House and was the subject of more than 69 hours of debate. The Scotland Act 1998 was also taken on the Floor of the House and was the subject of more than 121 hours of debate before it left for the other place.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend mentioned the Government of Wales Act 1998, which specified, subject to a referendum, that there would be no reduction in the number of Welsh seats until primary powers were devolved.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

indicated dissent.

[Albert Owen]

But that was the settlement given to the Welsh people, and the Deputy Prime Minister is driving a coach and horses through it with his Bill.

[Sadiq Khan]

We also did a novel thing in those days—Labour still does this now—of putting the things that we stand for in an election manifesto. Even if someone wins a popular mandate for that manifesto, they should ensure that there is proper debate and scrutiny on the Floor of the House. The coalition Government have a smaller majority than the previous Labour Government, but they have rushed the Bill through.

The Bill is more far-reaching than the Acts to which I referred, but there have been fewer than 40 hours of debate on it in the House before it goes to the other place. Day after day, colleagues on both sides of the House have been denied their wish to speak and deprived of the opportunity to make important points, and their speeches have been truncated when in full flow. The Liberal MPs on the Front Bench below the Gangway have had their mouths zipped because of the way in which the coalition Government have rushed the Bill through.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman obviously has not quite understood that in a coalition, more than one party must be accommodated. The Labour party is not in the coalition. Can he be very clear whether Labour party policy is the same as it was at the election, which is to support the alternative vote? I am referring not only to the Leader of the Opposition, but the shadow Cabinet, Labour Members and the party as a whole.

[Sadiq Khan]

The deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats wants to start a new convention—have a manifesto, not win the election, get involved for five days in a shabby deal with the Conservative party, and reach an agreement for the sake of power rather than principle.

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

I am always happy to come to the aid of the Liberal Democrats when they, once again, get their facts wrong. The policy of the Labour party at the last election was to have a referendum on the alternative vote and to allow the people of this country to have a say, with Labour MPs campaigning on both sides of the argument.

[Sadiq Khan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The point is what these arrogant Ministers have come to, after just five months, in this mother of all Parliaments. At a time when we are helping emerging democracies understand how democracy should work, we have a Bill that will change the voting system, reduce the number of MPs and change the way in which seats are distributed, all for the sake of political expediency and the coalition’s calculations, rather than for principle.

For the avoidance of doubt, the Labour party supports the principle of more equal seats, but that objective could be met in a more balanced and practical way than proposed in the Bill. As things stand, the requirement for every seat to fit within 5% of a UK-wide electoral quota would see dramatic changes to long-established patterns of representation, but take no proper account of geography, history or community ties. The boundary commission secretaries said in evidence—I know that the Deputy Prime Minister does not like evidence, but I will give him some this evening—that

“the application of the electoral parity target is likely to result in many communities feeling that they are being divided between constituencies…and will result in many constituencies crossing local authority boundaries.”

We will see the creation of seats that cross the Mersey, a “Devonwall” constituency that straddles the Tamar is inevitable, and then there is the Isle of Wight—a problem that called for the wisdom of Solomon has received the attention of the absent Hitchcock in the last few weeks. Against everyone’s wishes, the island will be split in two, with 35,000 electors merged with constituencies in Hampshire, producing a ripple effect that will distort the composition of neighbouring seats for miles around.

We have suggested that several areas, including Cornwall, Anglesey and the Isle of Wight, should be allocated whole constituencies, to avoid these perverse outcomes. The Government have not listened. We advocated the compromise of a 10% absolute limit on disparity, which would provide more equal-sized seats while enabling factors such as geography and community to be taken into account. The Government have not listened.

The indecent haste of the changes will also create problems. To complete a review by October 2013, the boundary commissions have been instructed to use the December 2010 electoral register, from which more than 3.5 million eligible voters are missing, as the foundation for the constituencies redesign. As the missing millions are mostly younger, poorer people predominantly located in urban areas, the calculations are bound to produce a distorted electoral map.

To compound everything, the Bill abolishes the right to hold local inquiries into boundary commission recommendations. Even critics of the inquiry process have questioned that decision, asserting that if there was ever a boundary review for which inquiries will be needed, this is it. But the Government will not listen, because consulting the public would mean delaying their politically driven timetable, designed to damage Labour’s electoral standing.

Combining the referendum with other polls next May is also clearly wrong. It increases the risk of administrative chaos and the potential for spoiled ballots. It will also cause problems with expenses, the media and the electoral rules, as other hon. Members have pointed out.

[Geraint Davies]

On the issue of corrupting the democracy of the Welsh Assembly and the evidence of the Select Committee, does my hon. Friend accept that Wales is a nation of 3 million people set alongside a nation 17 times its size? Wales is also exclusively reliant on a funding stream from England. The Select Committee essentially said that there will be profound constitutional consequences for the whole of the UK if this Bill is railroaded through and the democratic mandate from Wales is reduced by a quarter. We are here to be the voice of Wales, and this is a slap in the face for the Union and for Wales.

[Sadiq Khan]

If my hon. Friend thinks that the Deputy Prime Minister—the great reformer—has read the report of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I am afraid that he is mistaken. The Deputy Prime Minister has not even read Ron Gould’s report or been present in the Chamber since 6 September, so the idea that the Government will take into account any of the evidence is nonsense.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman mentions the Gould report. The problems in the Scottish elections in 2007 were caused because the Labour Government decided to have a ballot paper on which people had to put two crosses in two separate columns. If he had read the Gould report, he would know that that was what caused the problem. In this case, there will be three ballot papers and people will have to put an X on each of them. That is far simpler. Clearly he has not read the Gould report.

[Sadiq Khan]

The hon. Gentleman is making the same mistake that the Deputy Prime Minister made, which is not to have heard the comments made just an hour ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on the same point. What the hon. Gentleman has described is not the reason why we object to the referendum and the elections being held on the same day. He really must do a service to his constituents, bearing in mind that they will suffer huge consequences, by listening to the evidence and listening to the debate. The other problem with having a referendum on the same day as national elections and council elections outside London is the differential turnout. Irrespective of the result on 5 May 2011, and whichever way the vote goes, there will be questions about the legitimacy of that vote because of differential turnouts. Who is to blame for this? The Deputy Prime Minister, the great reformer.

Labour supports a referendum on AV and agrees with the principle of creating more equal seats, but this Bill is a bad means of delivering both objectives. It is too inflexible and too hasty, and it will lead to great and ongoing political instability. This House has failed to improve the Bill because it has not been allowed to do so. To our shame, that task now falls to unelected peers in the other place, whom we must now rely on to inject some democratic principles into what, to date, has been an inglorious episode in recent parliamentary history.

20:44

[Mrs Laing]

We have had many, many hours of debate on this Bill— not enough, some would argue. Unfortunately, there are parts of the Bill that have not been reached and not been examined, for various reasons. The other day I found a quotation in one of those amusing books that said: “Laws are like sausages. It is better not to see them being made.”

[Kevin Brennan]

Bismarck.

[Mrs Laing]

I believe it probably was Bismarck. If ever that were true, it is true of this Bill. However, this is also a necessary Bill. I said at the beginning that I appreciated why we had to have it and that I would support it, and I will continue to do so.

The Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform did its best, on a rushed timetable, to perform what legislative scrutiny of the Bill we could. On behalf of the Committee, let me say that I hope that our reports and investigations, and the evidence that we have made available to Members has been useful in informing some of the debates that have taken place. While mentioning the Committee, let me say that the Chairman, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), will be sad to have missed this part of the proceedings on the Bill, just as he has had to miss many of the Committee’s sittings, because he has been unwell. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing him a speedy recovery, although he is not seriously ill, so I believe that he will be back soon—it is okay, I should tell Opposition Members that he will not be missed for too long. The Committee has done its best to help the House to consider this Bill properly.

The second part of the Bill is excellent—the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will not be surprised to hear me say that. It is correct that we should at last grasp the difficult nettle of the composition of the House of Commons. It is correct that we should reduce the number of Members of Parliament to the perfectly round and reasonable figure of 600. It is correct that this House and this Parliament should make that decision, as it is doing this evening. It is also correct and inarguable that every constituency in the United Kingdom, whether in Scotland, Northern Ireland, England or Wales, that sends a Member to this United Kingdom Parliament should be of equal size.

[Chris Bryant]

Apart from two.

[Mrs Laing]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I disagree about the two. It is a pity about the two.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that historically there has always been a weighting in favour of the Celtic nations to ensure that we do not have an England-dominated Parliament?

[Mrs Laing]

No, I certainly do not. The hon. Gentleman’s point has no validity whatever. This is the Parliament of the United Kingdom—of the whole United Kingdom—and every constituency in this United Kingdom should be of equal size and should have an equal number of voters. Every Member who is elected to this Parliament should come here with an equal weight of electorate behind them.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

Now that we must give votes to prisoners, will we have to have equal-sized prisons?

[Mrs Laing]

Mr Deputy Speaker might say that that point is not relevant to this Bill. It is not for me to argue the matter. I do not want prisoners to have the vote, but that is not the point at issue. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) gave perfectly good responses to that this afternoon.

Labour Members have produced all the little arguments they can possibly think of to try to preserve the current unfair imbalance in constituency structures that gives the Labour party an unfair electoral advantage. Every statistic shows that, and it cannot be argued against because it is a matter of simple arithmetic. It is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact—[Interruption.]

Hon. Members say, “gerrymandering”, but the gerrymandering was done by the last two Boundary Commissions under the then Labour Government. Of that there is no doubt whatever.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Lady has no evidence.

[Mrs Laing]

I certainly have evidence, and it is sitting in front of me now. The fact is that in a modern, properly constructed democracy one vote should have one value.

[Sadiq Khan]

Does the hon. Lady think a system that is not subject to a public inquiry is more or less likely to lead to gerrymandering?

[Mrs Laing]

No. I think the point is incompetent. We debated it at great length last night, and the fact is that public inquiries are not necessary. It is necessary to have a certain amount of time for consultation, and that is provided in the Bill. We do not need long, drawn out public inquiries when political parties spend weeks and months arguing spuriously about old-fashioned boundaries and traditions, and about hills, mountains and rivers, when they are concerned only about the number of Labour voters or Conservative voters who are likely to be in a constituency. Labour Members should have the courage to face up to a fair democratic system, and that is what the Bill will introduce.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Lady aware that in 2005, when Greater Manchester reviewed 28 constituencies, the public inquiry took three weeks, not months—no longer than three weeks?

[Mrs Laing]

Yes, I am aware of that, but it does not change my argument one tiny bit. The fact is that the Bill provides for a much fairer and equal system with one vote, one value. Equality is all that matters.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady has said a lot about fairness. Does she think it is fair to pack the House of Lords with more Members in order to force this legislation through?

[Mrs Laing]

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the acts of the last-but-one Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who packed more members of the Labour party into the House of Lords than any previous Prime Minister had done. And no, I do not think it is fair, but that is not relevant. I am sure that his party will be pleased to hear his criticism of its hero, Mr Blair.

I have had more difficulty in supporting the first part of the Bill, although it is obvious that we have to have a referendum because it is part of the deal done between the two parties in order to form the coalition agreement. We need a coalition Government in order to give the country the stability that we require to deal with the horrific economic circumstances left behind by the last Labour Government.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I am sorry to make an unhelpful intervention on my hon. Friend, whom I greatly admire, but my understanding of a deal for a coalition Government is that when a bargain is made, both sides stick to it. That is why I voted for this Bill on Second Reading, despite my objections to it. Subsequently, however, the part of the bargain that induced me to endorse the deal—namely, the fact that we were told that the Liberals would accept the renewal of the Trident strategic nuclear deterrent—was dishonoured. That is why I shall be voting against the Bill on Third Reading.

[Mrs Laing]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, but it does not change my arguments about the Bill. I appreciate his point, but I still say that we should have a coalition in order to provide the stability that the country needs in the aftermath of Labour’s economic disasters. It is therefore necessary to have this Bill and to have a referendum.

It is a great pity that the referendum is to be held on the same day as other elections. We have heard many very well put arguments, particularly from Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, about why the referendum should not take place on the same day as their national elections. Nor should a referendum go ahead without a threshold. That could result in a vote on a derisory turnout of some 15% changing our constitution. That is quite simply wrong, but I realise that the Government are not going to accept that argument because, once again, these provisions are in the coalition agreement, by which we are bound.

[Kevin Brennan]

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the date of the referendum is not set in stone in the coalition agreement, and that it is simply a part of the Bill? Does she also agree that the Deputy Prime Minister’s desire to maximise the chances of winning the referendum by holding it on that date could well backfire on him, because of the manner in which the Bill is demotivating many of us who are in favour of electoral reform but who have consistently been appalled by the way in which it has been railroaded through, against the wishes of the devolved Administrations?

[Mrs Laing]

Yes, I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. He is totally correct. The fact is that some of us have tried, in all good faith, to improve the Bill, but we have failed to do so. On those matters of principle, we now have a Bill in more or less the state that it was in when it first came to the House. I must not presume what might happen in another place, but let us assume that we will now have to go ahead with a referendum on the same day as the elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and some local elections in England. The turnout for the referendum could be derisory, so it would not have much validity. However, I am now sure of one thing, and the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) has just reinforced my point. As this argument has gone on in the country and the media over the last few months, it has become clear—and it will become even clearer—that the British people will not be duped into voting for a voting system that is representative neither of a fair first-past-the-post system, nor of the sort of proportional representation seen in some countries, which I do not like, although I agree it has some validity. The system we will be voting on will be neither one nor the other—and I do not believe that the British people with their good sense will vote for it.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Lady—[Interruption.] Wonderful? Yes, she is wonderful, but is she aware that there is no popular mandate for this referendum? It was not in the Liberal Democrat manifesto—the Liberal Democrats wanted to push this through without a popular referendum and to impose this on the British people—and it was not in the Conservative manifesto either. Does the hon. Lady think that the other place might well regard this commitment as having no validity in terms of a democratic mandate?

[Mrs Laing]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct: there is no democratic mandate for this referendum—none whatever. If the proportion of votes cast for the Liberal Democrats in the UK as a whole during the general election in May this year were mirrored in the referendum, there would be no problem defeating the yes vote. The referendum would fail and we would be able to continue with our good, historic, solid, decent first-past-the-post system, which has served us so well for centuries.

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Laing]

No, I must not; I have already taken up too much of the House’s time and there is not much of it left this evening.

This Bill could have been better, but it goes some way to improving our democracy, so I encourage hon. Members to support it.

21:02

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I will be brief, as other Members want to contribute. The speeches this evening and other speeches in Committee and on Report have shown that this is a highly politicised issue and a highly politicised debate. When we debate changes to the voting system, major constitutional change and changes that affect the boundaries of constituencies, an attempt is usually made at least to reach some cross-party consensus. It is sometimes done through the procedure of a Speaker’s convention, for example.

Given the rhetoric of the Government parties before the election, one would also have hoped for some pre-legislative scrutiny and the proper involvement of the parties representing all regions and areas of the United Kingdom. Instead, a Bill has been cobbled together, and elements of it have received no mandate—and no mandate has even been sought in respect of them. As a result, we are in this divisive situation, in which the Government are ramming the Bill through without agreement and without consensus. That is no way to deliberate and it provides no basis for making decisions on the future composition of this House—or indeed for deciding how people should vote for Members of this House in the future.

Despite what the Deputy Prime Minister has said and despite what other Ministers—they have struggled manfully to deal with these issues—have done, it is clear that a lot of the opposition to the Bill has come from Conservative Members behind the Government Front Bench, not just from Opposition Members. From a Northern Ireland perspective, I have to say that the respect agenda that has been much talked about has not been much in evidence on this issue. Eloquent words on Wales and Scotland have already been spoken, but as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, the alteration of the Northern Ireland parliamentary boundaries has a direct impact on the Northern Ireland Assembly boundaries—they are one and the same. Those changes will happen every five years. The Deputy Prime Minister seemed to suggest that they will not happen, but given that there will be a boundary revision every five years, and given the changes in registration and the number of votes allocated to different countries and regions, it is inevitable that there will be changes in the boundaries. That will have a direct impact on the make-up of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which has multi-Member constituencies.

We have all gone through an long period during which we tried to reach a political settlement in Northern Ireland. Thankfully, we have made enormous progress. We have a reasonably, or relatively, stable political set-up, although of course challenges and difficulties remain. However, we risk upsetting that political equilibrium—that consensus—with this measure, which, as I have said, will have a direct impact on the Northern Ireland Assembly. Moreover, all this has happened without any prior consultation with the parties or the Executive in Northern Ireland. I believe, and any objective observer would believe, that that consultation should have taken place.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposed boundary changes, and the continual changes that will follow, will lead to instability and uncertainty, and that that in itself does not augur well for the political process in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Dodds]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He has experience of these matters, having been a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly until recently.

The Deputy Prime Minister said that, as well as the changes in the Bill, the Government would introduce reforms of the House of Lords. While I welcome the proposals for House of Lords reform, I am mystified by the fact that the Bill is being rushed through without our seeing any of the details of those proposals. If the Government wish to make changes to the political system and make democracy more accountable and transparent, why do they not introduce all their reforms at once? Why can we not see the details of what will happen to the other place, as well as what will happen to the voting system and membership of the House of Commons? We have been given no explanation, other than the obvious explanation that this is being done entirely for reasons of political expediency and—as suggested by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing)—to keep the coalition agreement alive.

It is outrageous that the Government have done away with the proposals for local public inquiries taking oral evidence. That would have allowed people to become involved in the process, to be interrogated on their evidence, and to be cross-examined. It would have enabled communities to have an input. We will experience the most sweeping changes in boundaries that we have experienced for decades, and Northern Ireland in particular will experience the impact of those changes. That is outrageous and wrong, it should be reviewed, and, at the very least, people should be allowed to have their say at local level.

Like other Members, I sincerely hope that if the Bill is railroaded through in the absence of cross-party consensus, another place will consider it extremely carefully, and will reach some wiser and more sensible decisions.

21:08

[Mr Charles Walker]

I shall be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I could have just about brought myself to vote for the Bill, but for the fact that once again it plays into the hands of the Executive. Once again, we see the Executive seizing more powers at the expense of Parliament. The House will be reduced to 600 Members of Parliament, while the Executive will remain as large as it is now.

I really did think that we had learned our lesson in the last Parliament. I really thought that, after 100 years of giving powers away, we might do things differently in this Parliament. I now wonder what on earth is the point of being a Member of Parliament in this place. Only three hours ago, we were informed that prisoners would be given the vote. We would not have a say in it; it would be done over our heads.

Tonight, my constituents have every right to ask, “What is the point of Charles Walker? What is the point of having elected representatives?” This is an appalling state of affairs. Once again, we are increasing the powers of the Executive at the cost of Parliament, and we deserve absolutely no sympathy. Whatever befalls us over the next four years as Back Benchers, we will have brought it on ourselves. However, I say to new parliamentary colleagues in particular that it is very difficult to vote against this Bill, because their political virility will be measured by whether or not they become a Minister, and if they do not become a Minister they do not get the extra money, the car or the red box, and when they leave this place as a humble Back Bencher there will not be people queuing up to offer them jobs because companies want only politicians who have had the red box to serve on their boards. I therefore say to any Back Bencher who votes against this Bill tonight, “You are extremely brave, and if you do vote against the Bill you, like me, won’t have a career going forward, but you will have my undying admiration.”

[Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The facts show that those who rebel against their own party are more likely to become junior Ministers than those who do not.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I thank the hon. Member for that clarification, but it was not a point of order. Have you finished Mr Walker?

[Mr Walker]

I think I have, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Several hon. Members rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Many Members want to speak, and I want to call as many of them as possible. If Members are as brief as Mr Walker was, I am sure we will hear from a lot of colleagues.

21:11

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I will abide by your dictum, Mr Deputy Speaker.

It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and many other Members both from England and the regions have spoken extensively in the debates in opposition to the Bill for various reasons.

Let me say at the outset that I commend the Minister. I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that he should be proud of a Minister who, under fire, has completely resisted any suggestions, alternative ideas or possibility that there might be any other logic to adopt for the way forward. The Minister has done very well in that respect.

There is a difficulty in that position, however, and it involves a fundamental point of principle. I agree that equalisation is a real issue, but I honestly thought that Liberals and Conservatives understood not only this Parliament and the Union, but also the slow evolution of the Union. Issues to do with the Union have been approached incrementally by and large. Successive Government of Wales settlements, and Northern Ireland and other settlements, have been very sensitively engineered and calibrated in order that the Union is strengthened.

I am a strong Unionist, and my fear in respect of this Bill is not as the Member for Ogmore, although I know that under the maps for these proposals my constituency disappears—and I am sure it is only a coincidence that it has the biggest absolute majority of any constituency in Wales. I can take that on the chin, however.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

You’ve only got 52,000 voters!

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman says I have a certain number of voters. What he and his Government colleagues are doing in the Bill is reductively defining parliamentary democracy as

It states:

“In this Schedule the ‘United Kingdom electoral quota’ means—

21:15

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

The Bill is a compromise brought about by the coalition agreement and it contains two different parts: the AV part, which I wholeheartedly support; and the part about reducing the number of MPs and imposing the 5% straitjacket. I am perfectly supportive of reducing the number of MPs, but I have difficulties with the 5% straitjacket.

[Tristram Hunt]

rose—

[Mr Reid]

The Deputy Speaker has asked for short speeches, so I will give way only once.

[Tristram Hunt]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain the rationale behind the choice of 600 Members, given that the Liberal Democrat manifesto proposed 500 and the Tory manifesto proposed 585? What was the thinking process involved in getting to 600?

[Mr Reid]

The Liberal Democrat manifesto’s proposal for 500 Members was based on the assumption that the single transferable vote system would be used—our proposal was combined with that. Coalition involves compromise, and I was not present at Chequers when the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister negotiated the fine points of this Bill. The coalition agreement said that there would be

“fewer and more equal sized constituencies.”

So there was no need to go for this 5% straitjacket.

This country is fortunate in having an independent Boundary Commission, which in the past has always acted truly independently and has never been subject to political influence. We should be grateful for that and we should give more powers for flexibility to our independent boundary commissions. In the Bill, the 5% straitjacket is not an absolute principle because, as has been pointed out, there are some exceptions. There is an exception for islands, and I support that. It is perfectly right that Orkney and Shetland and Na h-Eileanan an Iar should have their own constituencies. However, I also draw the Government’s attention to the fact that other constituencies contain islands, for example, the Isle of Wight and Anglesey. My constituency contains 13 islands that can be accessed only by ferry or air, which compares with the three in the Western Isles. My constituency has four times as many islands as the Western Isles, twice the land area and three times the size of electorate, so I would hope that we could have some more flexibility.

Elsewhere, on the highland mainland, the Government have introduced the 13,000 square kilometre rule. It will not result in the creation of any constituency that is more than 5% under the quota. What it will do is create three strange constituencies, because in order to get both within the quota and under the 13,000 square kilometre rule the Boundary Commission will have to create three strange constituencies, each containing a part of Inverness. One will comprise one part of Inverness and will go all the way up to Cape Wrath. Another will contain a part of Inverness and will go all the way west to Skye. A third will contain a part of Inverness and will go south and east. Those will be three strange constituencies and there is little community interest for them. We are supposed to be representing communities, but there is very little community link between somebody on the north-west of Sutherland and somebody in Inverness. I hope that this part of the Bill will be re-examined in the House of Lords and the Government will be amenable to accepting amendments that will give the Boundary Commission a bit more discretion. We are fortunate in having an independent Boundary Commission, and we should give it more discretion.

21:19

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

It has been a long seven-and-a-half-hour wait and I did have a 10-minute speech, but I shall cut that down as much as possible. It is obvious to anybody of independent mind that this legislation is being pushed through with unseemly haste, although perhaps not so quickly that the manifold flaws, inconsistencies and illogicalities in part 2, with its utterly arbitrary “reduce and equalise” agenda, have not been suitably identified and exposed.

I would write it all off as incompetence, were it not for the Government’s wilful refusal to make improved voter registration a priority and precondition for reform, their reluctance to make a commitment to an appropriate and proportionate reduction in Cabinet posts and their determination to leave common sense out of the boundary review process, which will reduce constituencies to little more than arithmetical units.

As always—I make no apologies for this—I am particularly concerned about the ramifications for Merseyside. The sub-region has coped well in the face of the recession, but analysts suggest that it is likely to be extremely and disproportionately hard hit by the Government’s slash-and-burn policies. However, at a time when the people of Merseyside will increasingly be looking towards their MPs to fight their corner, the sub-region looks set to lose at least two parliamentary seats. That puts paid to the myth that lofty ideals, social conscience and progressive thinking underpin the Government’s electoral reform agenda.

Let me, if I may, jump on the number-crunching bandwagon for a couple of minutes. Currently, my constituency—Liverpool, Walton—has one MP for 89,732 citizens or 62,612 registered voters. In the year—[Interruption.] Someone is questioning the figures, but I live there. In the year of the constituency’s creation, 1885, the population of Liverpool stood at about 614,000 and the city was split into no fewer than nine parliamentary divisions. That equates to one MP for every 68,228 citizens, but—note—for far fewer registered voters, given that, among other things, women had not yet achieved suffrage. Had the registered electorate in Walton represented 69.8% of the constituency population, as it does now, John George Gibson MP, the first Member for Liverpool, Walton—a Tory, no less—would have represented only around 47,000 registered voters. In reality, the electorate minus women represents a smaller percentage of the Walton population, and thus the figure would have been considerably lower—perhaps 24,000.

This is not just about numbers. It is true that the composition of parliamentary seats back in the 19th century was arguably as arbitrary as it is now, so I am not for a minute suggesting we use any point in history as a blueprint, but let me tell the House why that example from our local history is important and matters. The Government intend every MP to represent an electorate of at least 72,000. Leaving aside the issue of non-registration, which further skews the figures, what equips a 21st-century MP, in these complex times, to represent three times as many individuals as his or her Victorian predecessor? What is progressive about a modern-day voter having approximately a third of the democratic clout of his or her ancestor?

Equally illogical and disingenuous is the so-called “equalise” agenda. I struggle to understand how numerically homogenising seats has anything to do with “fairness” or “equality”—those much vaunted and abused buzz words of the coalition Government. On the face of it, my constituency would appear to be pretty evenly matched with that of the Bill’s chief flag bearer, the Deputy Prime Minister. Their populations are similar and their registered electorates both stand around the 60,000-plus mark, falling short of the 72,000 lower limit proposed by the Government, but that is where the similarity ends. In my constituency fewer than 9% of the population are graduates, whereas in Sheffield, Hallam 35.6% of the populace have graduated from university. In my constituency, 32% of households have no central heating or private bathroom; in Sheffield, Hallam the figure is 4%. In my constituency, 45% of adults have no qualifications at all, whereas in Sheffield, Hallam only 17% of adults are disadvantaged in that way.

I have another major concern. In the most recent periodic boundary review there were absurd suggestions about Merseyside, including one for a constituency straddling the River Mersey. Fortunately, that did not come to pass, but an expert recently concluded that

“the spectre of a cross-Mersey seat would rise again”

under the proposed legislation. In July I asked the Deputy Prime Minister for assurances that the River Mersey would be recognised as a natural boundary, to which the Minister responsible for political and constitutional reform, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), gave a decidedly evasive reply. He passed the buck to the Boundary Commission but stressed that the “electoral quota” requirement would take precedence. That paves the way for all manner of insensitive, inappropriate and impractical boundary changes on Merseyside and elsewhere that will result in even greater political confusion and disaffection than already prevails.

Part 2 of the Bill is based on a version of reality that is quite at odds with the reality on the ground. It presumes a politically engaged electorate, and that the average voter is indignant that his or her vote might be statistically worth a fraction less than the vote of a counterpart elsewhere in the country. It implies that granting votes parity and thus achieving democratic equality will somehow render life in Britain more equitable and fair. But the “Animal Farm” argument that we are all equal, but some are more equal than others, will not wash. More than 3.5 million people in England and Wales alone are not even registered to vote, and most people do not fret about the statistical weighting of individual votes.

[Ms Bagshawe]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Steve Rotheram]

No; I am short of time and I am being encouraged to hurry up, so I am trying to speak as fast as I can.

The reality is that millions of voters in many constituencies do not have the luxury of dwelling on their democratic parity with their peers elsewhere: they are too busy simply trying to stay afloat. They approach their MPs for practical support, guidance and intervention more than they do for high-minded ideological representation. There is nothing equal or fair about this reality, and the proposed constituency changes, which are unwarranted, ill-conceived, poorly evidenced and politically pernicious, will do nothing to address it.

21:28

[Mr Shepherd]

The only question that has really worried me in the middle phase of my parliamentary career is the extent to which the constitution has changed in my time in this place. This Bill represents the old politics as we know them, and it is extraordinary for those whom we represent to hear the expression “new politics” while the same old methods, the same old tricks, the same old imposition of will and the same number of guillotines pour out of the Executive. That is rich, because it happens each time the House changes. The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) has made the most important point of all in the old discourse: all this has no mandate. No one in the electorate has expressed a view on it, and no one even raised it with many of us during the course of the general election.

I pay tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) for carrying this Bill. I have never been present during deliberations on a Bill when its protagonist or originator does not deign to attend the Commons—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] No, let us get to the point: not only that, but he is incapable of making the argument for it. We have been left with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary having to refer to the coalition agreement—the image of gold. There will be some in the house who remember the story of Nebuchadnezzar, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. They created an image of gold. And what is the image of gold? It is the coalition agreement. It did not serve them right, and it does not serve us right.

My question is, as always on constitutional matters: in what way does the Bill enhance the position of the electorate vis-à-vis representation in the Commons and the Executive? I do not find that the Bill enhances that in any way. In fact, it goes out of its way to ensure that that is not enhanced. It reduces the number of elected representatives, for a start. That, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), means that the influence of the Executive vis-à-vis the Commons as a whole is increased.

Behind that, as we know, there are more captured people than merely those who aspire to the Executive. There is the Opposition, with their regiment of Whips and those who are expected to follow their own parties into the Lobby. There are very few independent souls in the House, and we have heard them in the course of the discussion of the Bill. That is the one good thing about the Bill.

I do not recall a Minister who has so cavalierly dismissed his responsibilities to the House—[Interruption.] I do not want to over-emphasise that point, but the country should know that we have never had such a poor demonstration on a major constitutional Bill. Furthermore, this was as guillotined a Bill as we could arrive at. We had what we now politely call a timetable motion—No. 4, only yesterday. That is the way the passage of the Bill has been run.

Hundreds of amendments have been pushed in because the Bill was incomplete and not thought through. The consequences were not weighed. How could they be weighed? The Minister leading on the Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister, is unaware of the arguments that take place here. The Bill will be sent down to the House of Lords, and there is an argument that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest—what business is it of the Lords, the electoral rules and regulations of the House of Commons?

Yet I am on my knees, and freethinkers in the House are on their knees, hoping that the Lords will have a view on whether there was propriety in the purposes behind the Bill. That is why I want to see—I hope to see—that House rise up and say, “This coalition image of gold is rubbish. The Bill does not reflect the settled will of the House of Commons”—that is what it amounts to—“nor does it reflect the needs of our people to have their own distinctive form of representation.”

These islands, these countries that form this Great Britain, have different traditions, different allegiances. My father said a long time ago that there are many Englands, just as there are many Scotlands, many Waleses, and so on. Each is particular. I represent the west midlands, which was the manufacturing heartland of the United Kingdom. For a brief moment this was the greatest, richest, most powerful nation on earth. Those are the same people whom we represent. Have we enhanced their rights, their power over the decisions of Government, their influence in the House? The Bill has not done that; in fact it diminishes those. I shall gladly vote against it, and I hope the House will join me in the No Lobby.

21:34

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), who has demonstrated two things about his character and his political principles: first, he is a man of great independence; and secondly, he is a greatly passionate politician. He has made a great speech, and I am proud to follow it.

The Deputy Prime Minister, in opening this Third Reading debate, said that he thought that in the wake of the expenses scandals of the previous Parliament, it was important to bridge the gap between the remoteness of Members of Parliament and the electorate. I think that those were the words that he used. That is a laudable objective, and there cannot be any Member who would not agree with it, but, before we decide how we vote on Third Reading, we have to judge the extent to which the measures in the Bill make us less remote from the voters.

Let us take three important issues that have not been addressed satisfactorily, if at all. First, what does the Bill do about the 3.5 million people who are not even on the register, and even though we know that they qualify for it? [Interruption.] Hon. Members laugh, but it is a serious issue. How could one be more remote than not even being on the electoral register? Yet nothing in the Bill will bridge that gap.

Secondly, there is the issue of the alternative vote system or, as Government Members somewhat misleadingly refer to it, “making the voting system fairer”. I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes).

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Howarth]

I will not, because I do not have much time and I need to allow others to speak.

The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark is a long-standing supporter of proportional representation, and I respect that but do not agree with him. Now, I do not intend to get into an argument about the merits of PR and first past the post, but I think that he said, “It’s a coalition. There has to be give and take.” The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) made the point slightly differently, saying that there has to be compromise. However, I ask the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark: who is giving and who is taking? It amazes me that he, as a supporter of proportional representation, feels able to support the Bill, because it does not include proportional representation, as he well knows. It does not even include the corrective of top-up seats, so we will end up with a system scarcely more proportional—and in some circumstances even less proportional—than our current system.

Finally, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, how does taking away the right of people to appear at a public inquiry and argue the case for a different set of boundaries from those that have been proposed make this Parliament or any other less remote from the people? It does not at all. In fact, it makes Parliament even more remote. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that this Bill is a complete mess. I have to ask those on the Liberal Democrat Benches: how can you support this system? It is not a compromise; it is give and take: they are taking everything and you are giving everything. I say to the Liberal Democrats, you have sold yourselves very short on this legislation. This is a Bill that you will come to regret, and I hope that the House will vote it down tonight.

21:39

[Simon Hughes]

I will deal straight away with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). This is not a perfect Bill—I am not pretending that it is—but it is a good Bill, and the two things that it does needed to be done.

First, we needed to give the British people a chance to improve the electoral system. The alternative vote is not a proportional system—I have never claimed that it is—but it has two advantages that our current system does not have. I appeal to anybody who is a progressive politician in any party to come to the view that we should support a system that, yes, keeps single-Member representation, but sends us here with a majority of support from those of our electorate who vote—

[Chris Bryant]

It doesn’t.

[Simon Hughes]

Yes it does.

[Chris Bryant]

No it doesn’t.

[Simon Hughes]

Yes it does, compared with the current system. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will just calm down—he is far too overexcited most of the time.

Secondly, the system allows people to express preferences—it is positive, not negative, voting that allows them to say what they really want politically as opposed to being forced to say what they do not want politically. That is definitely progress.

There is another practical consideration, as the right hon. Member for Knowsley knows. This House does not have a majority in favour of a proportional system at the moment—I accept that. I want a proportional system. Personally, I prefer alternative vote plus, because it has the balance of a single-Member seat plus top-up. But there is not a majority for those things. This measure allows Parliament to come to a view, as put forward by the Labour party in the general election, that the British people should be given the option of moving to a better system. It is not the perfect system—there is no such thing as a perfect system—and not the best system, but it is a better system. I hope that this House and the other place will allow the great British public to decide on this. Then, if the referendum comes up with a yes vote, as I hope it will, we will have a better political system and a better democracy.

I share one of the views of the right hon. Member for Knowsley and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram). It is a scandal and a shame that in this country, throughout the time of the Labour Government and now, 3 million or more people are not on the electoral register when they should be. I have made it clear to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and colleagues that there is a duty on our Government, just as there was a duty on the Labour Government that they did not discharge, to work across parties and outside parties to ensure that we get all those registered who should be registered.

[Julie Hilling]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hughes]

No, I am trying to be very quick.

I will go on arguing from these Benches that the Government need to do more to increase electoral registration. Yesterday, with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, I urged our party members to do more, and I hope that the Labour party and the other parties will do more as well. I hope that the Government will assist in every way—this month, before the December register comes into force—to ensure that the maximum number of people are on the electoral register. There are all sorts of ways of doing that, and the sooner we can start sharing our wisdom, the better.

I want to make one more substantial point. There is an absolutely overwhelming argument for more equally sized constituencies. The disparity between the number of voters per constituency is scandalous. I speak as somebody with Welsh, Scottish and English roots. It is no longer justifiable for Wales or Scotland to be over-represented in this place when England does not have any devolved government at all and is therefore already relatively under-represented.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hughes]

No, I am not giving way.

Nobody argues that there should not be exceptions in extreme cases, which is why two seats have been singled out. That has never been in dispute. There is an argument, which has been tested, as to whether there should be other exceptions, such as other island communities. That is an argument that will not go away in the debates up the corridor, and nor should it, because there are reasonable arguments for an extension down that road. However, I hope that we accept the principle that, wherever humanly possible, the number of electors should be similar, because that is the only way to ensure that this place can proportionately reflect the views of the electorate and that we can all be elected in a similar way.

[Mr Winnick]

What possible justification can there be for the boundary changes taking place without any public inquiry at all? Is that not a travesty of democracy? The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of defending and justifying what is intended.

[Simon Hughes]

I will give the hon. Gentleman the answer, having appeared at inquiries in the past. The justification is that the job will be done by an independent set of boundary commissions, which are no more or less likely to treat people and arguments fairly by receiving representations in writing than in oral evidence. Often, the main argument at public inquiries has been not among real people about their communities, but among political parties’ paid officers.

One argument that has been made is that we cannot reform one part of the constitution without reforming the others. I say gently to colleagues in the Labour party that unlike them, we will secure a predominantly elected House of Lords, which they did not do. Unlike them, we have on our agenda a reduction of the number of Ministers in future. [Hon. Members: “No you don’t.”] Yes, we do. We have it on the agenda—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have never known a situation in which the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) is virtually shouted down. It is not only unprecedented, it is unacceptable. We must hear the hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding the strong feelings.

[Simon Hughes]

This is the first of a series of radical constitutional reforms that Labour never delivered, and that the coalition is willing to deliver. I hope that the House is radical enough to support it, and that the House of Lords does a proper job of ensuring that we have the best possible form for the two proposals that I have mentioned. It does Labour no good to argue against changes none of which it introduced in 13 years.

21:47

[Ian Lucas]

When Labour came to power in 1997, it began a major programme of constitutional reform. At its heart was devolution in Scotland and Wales. Labour’s proposals in Scotland were based on the cross-party constitutional convention. In both Scotland and Wales, after referendums, it introduced voting systems that guaranteed representation for the Tories in the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales at a time when they had no representation there in Parliament. The political system also ensured that the Liberal Democrats had representation.

We may contrast that with the approach that we have seen from the Tories and their Liberal Democrat lapdogs in this disgraceful Bill. It has no basis in manifestos, and there was no draft legislation, no consultation with Opposition parties and no discussion with the elected representatives of devolved institutions. It removes the right of constituents to make representations on the biggest ever change in the boundaries relating to their communities. That is an absolute disgrace and a catalogue of decisions that the coalition parties should be ashamed of. Fundamental constitutional change is being imposed for partisan political reasons, with a timetable devised to secure maximum political advantage for the Tories and the Liberal Democrats.

The consideration of the Bill has been a cynical outrage. We have had Liberal Democrats voting against the single transferable vote and Tories voting in favour of taking away the right of local people to speak out in public inquiries when fundamental changes are made to their boundaries and communities. What does that say about Tories and Liberal Democrats empowering individuals and communities? As an MP from Wales, albeit an English one, I have seen the contempt for Wales that drives Welsh people into the arms of nationalists.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), and the Deputy Leader of the House have no understanding of the constitution of the United Kingdom. They ignore the asymmetric devolution that we have in the United Kingdom, and they take no account of the views of the peoples of the devolved nations who have voted in different referendums—in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales—to establish our constitution and they are now being ridden roughshod over without any electoral mandate.

What is even worse is that the supine Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and, yet again, the Welsh Ministers do not care. Where are they? The reason they do not care is that Wales and Scotland are irrelevant to the Tories. The Tories do not care what Welsh MPs think. This Bill will be pressed through. It does not matter what MPs, Assembly Members or Members of the Scottish Parliament say.

This Bill is contemptuous. It is designed to secure partisan advantage for the Tories and their allies. It has been railroaded through on a timetable constructed to maximise political advantage, and to ensure that it gets through before the next general election, and that is all that the Government care about. It changes the constitution for short-term political gain, without the consent of the peoples of the UK. The coalition parties will rue the day that this Bill was ever passed. It is the antithesis of everything that good legislation should be about. It shows this Government for what they are—dissembling, self-serving and dictatorial. Those who support them should be ashamed of themselves.

21:51

[Mr Cash]

I have opposed this Bill from the beginning because I do not believe that it is based on any sensible constitutional principle whatever. It is in defiance of our own manifesto. It supports the process of a coalition, which, given how this Bill came to be part of the coalition agreement, is itself subject to questioning. We have heard from the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and others as to the manner in which this Bill, or this proposal for this Bill through the coalition agreement, was devised. I do not need to rehearse all that. This is something that is a matter of grave concern to many of us. The question of principle and conviction, which ought to underlie any major constitutional issue, is wholly lacking in respect of this Bill.

I heard many of the arguments from the Labour party. I have to say that irrespective of what Labour Members do in the vote tonight, I cannot honestly say that I believe that they stand on any principle that is worth considering. They have not had any mandate for their vote as far as this Bill is concerned. The idea that a threshold should not be inserted as being the only protection for the people of this country, who are being taken to a referendum—a poll—largely because this Bill is being so heavily whipped, is in itself a matter of the gravest concern. This Bill violates constitutional principle. It violates the manner in which for 150 years we have conducted our parliamentary processes by first past the post. That is a principle that was upheld by people such as Disraeli and Gladstone, and even Lloyd George until the Liberal party decided, under his leadership or his influence at the time, that it might not be so convenient because the votes would not follow what he had to say.

In a nutshell, this Bill is unacceptable, which is why I, and I hope as many colleagues as possible, will vote against it. It is unprincipled. It is without a mandate and it is wrong.

21:54

[Julie Hilling]

I wanted to make a number of points, but with the shortage of time, I will keep my comments brief. Like many other hon. Members, I have tried to make points before, but because of the conduct and timetabling of the Bill, I have been unable to speak on my deeply held beliefs.

Let me take just one element of the Bill and try to correct some of the errant nonsense on independent inquiries. In 2005, an inquiry was held into the boundaries in Greater Manchester, because it was decided that after the application of the electoral quota, there should be 27.25 MPs rather than 28. However, because nobody could have the spare quarter of an MP, the number went down to 27 MPs, and something similar may happen in the near future. There were 384 written submissions before the decision to hold an independent inquiry. Once the inquiry was called, there were more than 600 written submissions and 190 people spoke to the inquiry. Sixteen alternative proposals were made.

I do not know of 190 political parties in Greater Manchester, so I would conclude that those submissions were from ordinary citizens. As I said, the inquiry took three weeks, not the many months that Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members would like us to believe inquiries take. Constituents individually or collectively put forward their views on how they wanted to be represented.

The Bill is deeply flawed on many levels. Not only does it reduce the number of MPs, potentially ignoring historical links, splitting wards and removing the right of people who are affected by changes to have their say, and not only is it gerrymandering of the worst kind, but it runs counter to all the Government’s grand statements on the big society, local decision making and empowering local people. The Bill shows that those are simply words, and that the Government have no intention of localising power. The Bill may be cost saving, but at what cost? It should not pass.

21:57

[Ms Bagshawe]

As Opposition Members will know, I have sat through most of the debate, and I have been astonished at their cant and hypocrisy—[Interruption.] Have they forgotten that among the nations—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, but she must be heard.

[Ms Bagshawe]

Have Opposition Members forgotten so completely that among the nations of the United Kingdom is the nation of England, which has been badly served by the democratic deficit? Again and again we have heard from them arguments over geography.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Ms Bagshawe]

I have but three minutes and I regret that I cannot give way.

We have heard arguments over valleys and rivers, but never have we heard arguments in favour of people. The Bill seeks to remedy an ancient wrong.

I say this to my hon. Friends who are worried about the AV referendum: take heart. I believe that the referendum is something of a miscalculation by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Liberal Democrat party, but I am quite happy and content to trust the people. Let us lay it before the people and let them decide.

Opposition Members have become convinced of the doctrine that what is traditional is therefore right. I welcome their eleventh-hour conversion to that doctrine, but they cannot get away from the fact that the boundaries in this country are incredibly unfair. The votes of those in Corby and east Northamptonshire should be worth exactly the same as those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). No matter how they run and no matter how they hide, they cannot make the argument that equality is bad for democracy.

That sums up Opposition Members’ arguments. I hope that the House supports the Bill in numbers, as it deserves.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

21:59

Division 110

Ayes: 321

---

Conservative: 268
Liberal Democrat: 51

Noes: 264

---

Labour: 231
Conservative: 15
Scottish National Party: 6
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Independent: 2
Liberal Democrat: 1
Green Party: 1

Bill read the Third time and passed.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today I received two letters about transferring parliamentary questions. One was from the Solicitor-General’s office telling me that my question on human trafficking had to go to the Home Office. The other was from the Home Office and said:

“The Home Secretary has asked me to let you know that he has arranged for the Question”

to be transferred. That is a different question, but it is about human trafficking and has been transferred away from the Home Office. Will you advise me, Mr Speaker, on who the new Home Secretary is, and what I can do about my questions being messed around with?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. On the first matter, his sense of humour never deserts him, and I do not think he requires any advice on that matter. However, the Home Secretary may want to have a word with her officials about this important issue. She has some reason to feel aggrieved.

On the second point, the hon. Gentleman will understand that it would not be right for me to comment on the detail of the matter. Suffice it to say that he is an ingenious parliamentarian, and he has put his views on the record very clearly and forcefully. They will be heard by the people whom I know he adores—the Whips on the Treasury Bench. I hope that that is helpful.

Business without Debate

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

delegated legislation

[Mr Speaker]

With the leave of the House, we will take motions 3 to 7 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Capital Gains Tax

That the draft International Tax Enforcement (Anguilla) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 15 July, be approved.

That the draft International Tax Enforcement (Bahamas) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 15 July, be approved.

That the draft International Tax Enforcement (Gibraltar) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 15 July, be approved.

That the draft International Tax Enforcement (Liechtenstein) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 15 July, be approved.

That the draft International Tax Enforcement (Turks and Caicos Islands) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 15 July, be approved.—(Mr Vara.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Immigration

That the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (No. 2) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 11 October, be approved.—(Mr Vara.)

Question agreed to.

delegated legislation (committees)

Ordered,

That the Motion in the name of Mr Peter Lilley relating to the House of Commons Members; Fund (Discretionary Payments) shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice of a motion has been given that the instrument be approved.—(Mr Vara.)

Administration

Ordered,

That Frank Dobson, Gemma Doyle and Mr Dave Watts be discharged from the Administration Committee and Mr Tom Harris, Mr Kevan Jones and Angela Smith be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Business, Innovation and Skills

Ordered,

That Luciana Berger, Jack Dromey, Nicky Morgan, Chi Onwurah and Rachel Reeves be discharged from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and Paul Blomfield, Katy Clark, Simon Kirby, Gregg McClymont and Ian Murray be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Communities and Local Government

Ordered,

That Toby Perkins and Chris Williamson be discharged from the Communities and Local Government Committee and Simon Danczuk and David Heyes be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Defence

Ordered,

That Mr David Hamilton, Mr Adam Holloway, Alison Seabeck and John Woodcock be discharged from the Defence Committee and Thomas Docherty, Mr Dai Havard, Penny Mordaunt and Sandra Osborne be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Education

Ordered,

That Conor Burns and Liz Kendall be discharged from the Education Committee and Neil Carmichael and Bill Esterson be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)



Energy and Climate Change

Ordered,

That Gemma Doyle and Tom Greatrex be discharged from the Energy and Climate Change Committee and Barry Gardiner and Ian Lavery be added.— (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)



ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Ordered,

That Nigel Adams be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Richard Drax be added.— (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)



FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Ordered,

That Emma Reynolds be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Mr Bob Ainsworth be added.— (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)



HEALTH

Ordered,

That Fiona Mactaggart be discharged from the Health Committee and Yvonne Fovargue be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

HOME AFFAIRS

Ordered,

That Mary Macleod be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr James Clappison be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)



HUMAN RIGHTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Ordered,

That Mr Andy Slaughter be discharged from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and Mr Virendra Sharma be added.— (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)



INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Ordered,

That Mr Russell Brown and Ann McKechin be discharged from the International Development Committee and Mr Michael McCann and Alison McGovern be added.— (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)



NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS

Ordered,

That Stephen Pound be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Kate Hoey be added.— (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,

That Eric Joyce be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Stella Creasy be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)



PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Ordered,

That Jon Trickett be discharged from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Lindsay Roy be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)



TRANSPORT

Ordered,

That Angie Bray, Lilian Greenwood and Angela Smith be discharged from the Transport Committee and Steve Baker, Julie Hilling and Gavin Shuker be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)



WELSH AFFAIRS

Ordered,

That Glyn Davies be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Stuart Andrew be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)



Work and Pensions

Ordered,

That Ms Karen Buck, Margaret Curran and Shabana Mahmood be discharged from the Work and Pensions Committee and Alex Cunningham, Glenda Jackson and Teresa Pearce be added. —(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Termination of Pregnancy (Information Provided)

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Vara).

22:19

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Although the abortion figures for last year were slightly reduced by 3.2%, there were still 200,000 abortions carried out in the UK last year—572 per day. Abortion in this country is an industry from which a small number of organisations and individuals make vast amounts of money. No sensible person would condone this. In examining the legislative abortion procedures of European countries with far lower numbers than ours, it occurred to me that for those countries in which informed consent before an abortion takes place is enshrined in law—Germany, France, Belgium, Finland and others—the abortion rate was much lower. I have deliberately excluded countries with religious and cultural influences, such as Italy, Spain and Portugal from that analysis. It also appears to me that in those countries, the abortion procedure is a far kinder one, which takes much more account of the vulnerable position a woman might be in at the time of her request for an abortion and provides her with alternatives to consider and a cooling-down time in order to think, breathe and take stock of what is happening.

All those countries with good informed consent legislation had significantly lower than average daily abortion rates than the countries that do not have such informed consent legislation. Although a causal link is impossible to prove, these figures suggest that informed consent legislation might prove a good way of reducing Britain’s abortion figures. I think that all Members of all parties are agreed that we want to see that happen.

In this country, if a woman requests a termination from her GP, no questions are asked. I have spoken to numerous GPs and posed this question to them: “When a woman sits in your surgery and asks for a termination, what do you say?” The answer I frequently receive is that the GP does not say anything, but writes a referral letter. That is the process at the GP stage. A referral is made to a hospital or clinic and the abortion is performed, for the woman’s sake, as quickly as possible and without fuss.

Minimal counselling or no counselling is provided in some NHS hospitals and some clinics. Minimal counselling is provided by BPAS—the British Pregnancy Advisory Service—which carries out a large number of abortions on behalf of the NHS. However, BPAS carries out some counselling, but also carries out the abortion, so there is a clear conflict of interest there.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I understand that the counselling provided by abortion providers is Government funded only if the abortion goes ahead. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about that?

[Nadine Dorries]

I am going to come to that very point a little later in my speech. It is one of the main concerns, mainly because no alternative counselling is provided to negate that option.

We all know that when it comes to abortion, the law is indeed an ass. It has no application whatever. We know that the law prohibits social termination—two doctors’ signatures are required—but none of that is ever taken into account. Abortion clinics freely admit that consent forms pile up in their offices, waiting for the second signature, long after the event has taken place.

A woman has an assumed right to choose. However, she apparently has no right whatever to any information on which to make that choice. If any of us were referred to a hospital today for a minor procedure such as an operation for an in-growing toenail, the procedure would be explained to us in detail. We would be made aware of the level of pain we might experience; we would be told exactly what would happen while we were under the anaesthetic; we would be given follow-up appointments to check on the progress of our healing; we would have our dressings changed and have checks for infection. A woman who has an abortion has none of that.

At the end of the day, the woman is discharged out on to the street and left to come to terms with the rollercoaster emotional journey of which she will still be in the midst. Before the woman received the procedure, she might have felt coerced, pressurised or bullied into the abortion. To her, it might have been a life or the beginning of a life—depending on her perspective. She might have had a seed of doubt, but once she was on the conveyor belt to the clinic, she might have felt helpless and unable to step off.

Make no mistake: abortion is not a medical procedure. It is not an in-growing toenail. Abortion is about the ending of a life, or a potential life. It is about a death which is final, and from which there is no going back. The abortion of a baby does not abort the seed of doubt or misgivings that may have been present at the time; that still remains.

Many consultant psychiatrists from the Royal College of Psychiatrists are becoming increasingly concerned about the number of women who are presenting with mental health issues directly linked to previous abortions. A major longitudinal 30-year survey published in The British Journal of Psychiatry in 2008 showed clearly—after adjustment for confounding variables—that women who had had abortions had rates of mental disorder 30% higher than women who had not. The Royal College of Psychiatrists said that, following its position statement on abortion and mental health,

“healthcare professionals who assess or refer women who are requesting an abortion should assess for mental health disorder and for risk factors that may be associated with its subsequent development”.

Nothing remotely like that happens. No consideration whatsoever is taken of the state of a mother’s mental health when she asks for an abortion. If she asks for an abortion, she is given one.

Given the disregard that we have for women seeking this procedure, I am surprised that that figure stands at only 30%. We push vulnerable women through a clinical procedure at great speed to end a life—or, as I said, a potential life—that is growing within them, and we wonder why only 30% have problems in later life. Those are the women who are diagnosed. They are the women who seek help, and whom we know about. We do not know about the others. Is it not time that we started to treat women a little better than this?

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has raised the issue of the rights of women in this context, but what about the fathers? I hope she agrees with me that the law needs to be examined to ensure that the rights of the potential father are taken into consideration.

[Nadine Dorries]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, but I am afraid that I must stick to the point of the debate, because otherwise we shall run out of time.

Does not the way in which abortions are carried out in this country today almost amount to abuse? We need to take lessons from our European neighbours. In Germany, women are offered counselling and a cooling-off period. That gives them a chance to breathe and think. It gives them support. They are informed about the procedure, and of the possible consequences. They are provided with alternative routes other than the surgical removal of a life. They are given information about adoption—and yes, I know that people throw up their hands in horror when that is mentioned, but it is not our pregnancy, and it is not our baby.

We have no right to institutionalise and frame a decision-making process that is void of choice for the women who seek information. It is a woman’s right to choose, and women should have the right to be given every shred of information that we have and every alternative option. If a woman wants to continue with her pregnancy and deliver her baby for adoption, she should have the right to choose to do so. If she does not, at least she can emerge from the abortion process feeling that she made an informed decision. She can emerge feeling that she went in empowered and not helpless, strong and not vulnerable, and believing that she did the best thing because she knew exactly what she was doing and had full knowledge of every available option. She will be able to draw strength from that in future.

Women are entitled to an option. They are entitled to give informed consent, which should be explicitly supported by pro-choice and pro-life campaigners. When it comes to a decision of such magnitude, it is vital for women to receive information that is absolutely accurate and is given calmly, without coercion or a principled bias and, in particular, without political ideology. Last month ComRes, the pollsters, revealed after an extensive survey that 89% of people agreed with that. They think that women should be entitled to have more information when requesting an abortion. Given that overwhelmingly high figure, it is time that this House paid some attention. I hope the Minister agrees that it is time that we took a little more care of women undergoing such a procedure. It is time that we introduced a statutory process of informed consent and a cooling-off period. The European evidence shows that that could provide us with a considerable reduction in the number of abortions, and everyone would surely welcome that.

I shall finish by mentioning a book which is to be launched this month. It is published by the charity Forsaken, which is neither pro-life nor pro-choice: it is pro-women. For two years, the charity has put together the stories of women suffering from post-abortion syndrome. Reading the book is so heart-wrenching that we just want to reach out and take their pain away, but we cannot. There is no going back. We cannot make it better; abortion is a procedure to end life—it is final.

The women interviewed for this book feel that talking about abortion is taboo. That forces them into silence, leaving them unable to express their suffering. Abortion really is a taboo subject. We will never see an abortion filmed on television; we will never see that screened. It is still the taboo subject that we do not talk about.

One woman in the book describes how even when she told the anaesthetist that she was changing her mind and was having doubts, he pushed her to go ahead. He did so because, if she changed her mind, he would not have been paid. There is the same process as for the counselling. If the woman does not go ahead with the abortion, the clinics are not paid for the counselling, and therefore they need to know that she is going ahead before she is given the counselling—and we can imagine the process that ensues.

I will conclude by reading a paragraph from the book, giving a young girl’s account:

“An uncle dropped me off at the clinic with a letter to give to them. I don’t know what that letter was. At this point, I was holding onto the thought that they were only checking me. The staff at the clinic were very nice there, seemingly courteous and kind. It was not my usual surgery, I did not realise it was an abortion clinic until I was shown into a counsellor’s room. When I went to the counsellor’s room, I was asked: ‘Why don’t you want to keep this pregnancy?’

‘I want it but my family don’t want it,’ I replied, and promptly burst into tears. ‘They won’t support me and I can’t look after it myself.’

Nothing more was said that I remember...I was given a bed—there must have been 20 of us crowded into that ward. I was the first in line. As I waited, I scanned the corridors for some means of escape, but I was already wearing my hospital gown and no underwear. It wasn’t long before a man brought a wheelchair to take me to the operating theatre. For a brief moment I wondered if I had the strength to run away, but instead I sat obediently into the chair.”

That is a story of loneliness, suffering, emptiness and loss that many thousands of women live with day after day. It is they who become the 30%.

It is time for the UK to catch up with the rest of Europe and introduce informed consent in an attempt to ensure that stories like this become a rare exception. It is time for this country to start looking after our young girls and women at the most vulnerable time in their lives and treat them with some respect.

22:33

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) on securing this debate on a subject in which I know she has had a long-standing interest. She rightly described it as a taboo subject, and the extract she read was moving, evocative and of concern to us all.

The debate comes at a welcome time for me, as I will be meeting representatives from the two biggest independent sector abortion providers later in the month to discuss how we might integrate contraception and wider sexual health provision into the services they provide. It will also be an opportunity for me to raise some of the issues my hon. Friend has highlighted tonight.

I also recently had a useful and productive conversation with a charity that supports young women and men in making informed sexual health decisions. For me and for the Government, reducing the abortion rate is an absolute priority, and to do that we have to ensure that women and men are given information and support to make responsible sexual health choices.

We have seen significant advances in the quality of abortion provision since the Abortion Act 1967 came into force. Early access to abortions has improved and evidence shows that the risk of complications increases the later the gestation. Currently, 75% of NHS-funded abortions take place at under 10 weeks, compared with 51% in 1992. Early abortion means that women have more choice as to the abortion method. Medical abortion using two tablets now accounts for 40% of the total number of abortions, as opposed to only 12% in 2001. However, abortion comes at the end of a failure of many other services in the lives of young women.

Independent sector abortion providers and those organisations that refer women for an abortion are hugely experienced, but are subject to Secretary of State approval and monitoring by the Care Quality Commission. That is why some of the issues that my hon. Friend raises are of considerable concern. We need to ensure that continued emphasis is placed on giving women and men advice and contraception, because it is needed. In the same way, women should be given access to tailored, appropriate and impartial advice on their pregnancy options.

The Government will be responding to the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology recommendation to update advice on the mental health consequences of induced abortion. The Government have commissioned a systematic review of the evidence, and the report will be published in spring 2011.

Interestingly, we have recently seen a substantial increase in the number of men attending family planning clinics—there was a 16% increase in the number of young men attending clinics in 2009-10, with 162,000 attendances. That is a massive 93% increase on the figure in 1999-2000, when only 84,000 men attended. I welcome the fact that young men are taking the issue of sexual health and pregnancy more seriously; I hope that they are taking it as seriously as young women are.

There are some examples of truly excellent, innovative sexual health services that have grown up at local level. However, as my hon. Friend said, the total number of abortions currently being carried out is just over 189,000 a year. Since 1992, the number of abortions has steadily increased, with the exception of the past two years when there was a fall in the number, albeit small. Just under half of teenage conceptions end in an abortion. However, the trend in both teenage conceptions and births is downward and the teenage pregnancy rate for 2008 was the lowest annual rate for more than 20 years. We should welcome that, although we should never be complacent because that figure of 189,000 is still way too high.

Repeat abortion is a continuing issue. Some 34%—one third—of women undergoing abortions had one or more abortions, a figure that has risen from 29% in 1998. Some 25% of repeat abortions were to women under 25. There are also significant and concerning variations between primary care trusts in repeat abortion rates, with rates in some areas as high as 45%. Abortions are traumatic and stressful, and they are not a form of contraception, but sadly they are clearly used as such in some instances. Women are offered a follow-up appointment within two weeks of the abortion. That also provides an opportunity to have another conversation about contraception needs if the woman was unclear as to contraception requirements at the time of the abortion, but that is not always taken up.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Is the Minister as concerned as I am that it is common practice for independent abortion providers to have their commercial relationship with PCTs and with other trusts in the health service hidden by the caveat of “commercial in confidence”? Therefore, people are not in a position to understand those providers’ commercial relationship with the NHS, and surely that offends against the principles of transparency in the NHS.

[Anne Milton]

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. The issues raised by conflicts of interest and hiding behind commercial sensitivity give rise to considerable concern. That is why I am pleased to be meeting some of the service providers in the next week or so to discuss those issues. It must be pointed out, with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire, that although the stories she talked about involved bad practice, there are a lot of instances of very good practice. We should not miss that in the discussion about where things are not going as well as they should be.

Contraception has been free for everyone and is readily available in the community from GPs, family planning clinics and abortion providers, but there are clearly barriers. Why are so many young women and men not using it? A number of factors can lead to risk-taking behaviour, such as sexual violence, alcohol, lack of contraception awareness and self-esteem. We need to use simple, effective messages about safe sex, sexually transmitted infections, condom use and contraception. We need to ensure that young people receive high quality education on relationships and sex and we need to tackle those issues in a holistic and effective way. We need to ensure that young people are equipped to make the choices and the sometimes challenging decisions that they face in their lives. Those decisions are increasingly challenging in this day and age.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Those thoughts from the Minister are all excellent, but it is my understanding that before the general election the now Prime Minister promised Government time so that the House could have an opportunity to have a free vote on legislation to change, for example, the upper limit. Will the Minister tell the House tonight whether the Government are still committed to providing time and, if so, when?

[Anne Milton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Others in this House might know more about parliamentary procedure than I do, but I understand that abortion is a matter that is usually raised by Back Benchers. He may look bemused, but that is what I have been told. It is usually raised by Back Benchers and the Government do not normally take a view on it. It is an ethical decision and there are usually free votes on it—I have witnessed them myself.

Young women and men need to think about contraception before having sex. People have busy lifestyles—and, in some instances, very chaotic lifestyles—and there are barriers to accessing contraception. However, with long-acting reversible contraceptives there are ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy for everyone, whatever their lifestyle. We need young women and men to be equipped with the information and knowledge to look after their physical, mental and sexual health so they are not put in this position in the first place.

Some £11.5 million has been invested this year and the sexual health charities Brook and the Family Planning Association, with funding from Government, have developed a new web-based contraception decision tool to help people to choose the best contraception for them. Launched on 14 July, the “My Contraception” tool asks users a range of questions about their health, lifestyle and contraceptive preferences and recommends a contraceptive method based on the results.

The Government’s “Sex. Worth talking about” national campaign has been quite well received and early indications suggest that it has prompted positive action. Local areas will now be able to use the “Sex. Worth talking about” campaign resources to support their local work. That is a development that I am sure we will all welcome. There are also pages on the NHS Choices website with a huge amount of information and a helpline for confidential advice.

Some advances have been made to ensure that women are able to have safe, legal abortions, but we need to stop the tide of unwanted pregnancies. That is the position that we want to be in. That will take an effort on a number of fronts, and later this year we will publish our White Paper on public health, which will set out our approach in a great deal more detail.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire rightly points out that a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy is extremely vulnerable. She also rightly points out that the consequences of abortion can be traumatic and far reaching. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) raised the issue of fathers, who are often forgotten in relation to this subject but who should not be forgotten in legislation and in the mechanisms we put in place to ensure that we not only prevent unwanted pregnancies but deal with their consequences.

I shall be very grateful for the continued support of my hon. Friends in making sure that we get the very best services available for women at this critical time. Anecdotal and individual Members’ experiences are vital to ensuring that we get those services right. Having in place informed consent, appropriate counselling and the right support for women at this vulnerable time will ensure that we do not fail them for the future.

Question put and agreed to.

22:45

House adjourned.