House of Commons

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

Tuesday 18 January 2011

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

1. What process he plans to follow to develop and implement proposals for a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber.

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

I am chairing a cross-party Committee to look at all aspects of House of Lords reform. We plan to publish a draft Bill in the coming period for pre-legislative scrutiny by—we hope—a Joint Committee of both Houses. Then it will be for the Government to decide on the introduction of the Bill.

[Dr Lewis]

Given that an all-elected upper House would, in effect, double the number of MPs while resulting in hundreds of highly skilled and eminent men and women being thrown out, what effects does the Deputy Prime Minister think will be applied to the legislative process as a result of this brilliant idea? Will it lead to greater effectiveness, greater prestige or just more machine politics?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My own view, as someone who has always supported greater democracy in the other place and greater accountability to the British people, is that the legitimacy of the other place would be enhanced. There are plenty of other bicameral democracies around the world that have two elected Chambers of different size with different mandates, elected even by different systems, which work extremely well in striking the right balance between effectiveness and legitimacy.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Of course, it was the previous Labour Government who made sure that the large majority of hereditary peers were removed—nearly 700—from the House of Lords. Has the Deputy Prime Minister any words of congratulations for Members of the current House of Lords on the way in which they are defending democracy against gerrymandering?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

If we needed any confirmation, this week of all weeks, that the Labour party’s commitment to cleaning up politics and political reform is a complete and utter farce—the leader of the Labour party who, sadly, is not in his place, was going around the television studios last weekend saying that he believed in new politics and that he wanted to reach out to Liberal Democrat voters—it is the dinosaurs in the Labour party in the House of Lords who are blocking people’s ability to have a say on the electoral system that they want. There cannot be meaningful political reform with such weak political leadership.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

One hundred years after the temporary provisions of the Parliament Act 1911 were introduced, some of us are impatient for my right hon. Friend to succeed in achieving an elected second Chamber. Can he reassure me that the grandfathering of voting rights will not be offered to newly appointed peers under the present Government?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The specific reference to grandfathering in the coalition agreement applies to the staged way in which we want reform of the House of Lords implemented over time. We want to be clear about the end point, which is a fully reformed House of Lords, but the stages by which we get there should be subject to proper scrutiny and proper debate, and will be, not least in the Joint Committee, when we publish the draft Bill, which we will do fairly shortly.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister has got himself a reputation as an habitual breaker of promises. May I ask him a simple and straightforward question, to which I hope he will give a simple and straightforward answer? In his draft Bill on the House of Lords to be published shortly, will he keep his promise of a 100% elected second Chamber?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows—he is a member of the very Committee that I have been chairing—that issue is still under discussion. We will make our views clear, as he well knows, when we publish the draft Bill. He talks about promises. Is that the equivalent of the promise to hold a referendum on the alternative vote—a manifesto commitment made by his party, which is now being blocked by the Labour party in the other place?

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

2. When he expects his proposals for fewer and more equally sized constituencies to be implemented.

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill currently being considered, if somewhat stalled by the Labour party in another place, requires the boundary commissions to submit their reports before 1 October 2013. The Secretary of State or the Lord President is required to lay before Parliament an Order in Council to bring the commissions’ recommendations into effect.

[Bob Blackman]

The majority of this House will certainly condemn the delays not only in this Chamber but in the other place. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that demonstrates the Opposition’s contempt for equal-sized constituencies and equal votes for people throughout the country?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As I said earlier, the leader of the Labour party said this very weekend that he believed in new politics and political reform, yet he cannot control members of his own party in the House of Lords. Either he did not mean what he said at the weekend, or he is too weak to lead his own party. Either way, the Labour party cannot be relied upon to deliver political reform.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Many reform-minded Members of this House are getting fed up with the right hon. Gentleman’s attitude to electoral reform. He has broken so many promises in the coalition agreement, so why does he not separate the date of the referendum on the alternative vote from the gerrymandering that his Government are putting through?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

We want to hold the referendum as soon as possible. We think that it is right to hold it when people are going to the ballot box anyway. That will save the taxpayer £30 million. We think that that is the right way to proceed. We on the Government Benches do not agree on the issue of AV, but at least we agree that the British people should have their say—something that the Labour party is now trying to block.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

My constituency is one of the smallest English seats. If I adhered to the principle of naked self-interest, I would be supporting the status quo. Is it not right that we have equal-sized constituencies—equality for all voters so that each vote has equal value?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Of course it is. It has been a principle for political and democratic reformers of all parties for generations that all votes should be valued in the same way. It simply cannot be right, for instance, that right now Islington North has an electorate of just over 66,000, and yet 10 miles away in East Ham the figure is 87,000. Voters in a constituency just 10 miles away have less value attached to their votes than those up the road. That is wrong. That is what we are seeking to remedy. It is a simple principle: all votes should be worthy of the same value wherever they are found in the country.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I know that the Deputy Prime Minister gets in a terrible lather whenever anybody has the effrontery to contradict him, but may I suggest to him that he could perfectly easily have his referendum on the day that he wants it by splitting the Bill? It is perfectly straightforward. He said that the main reason for cutting the number of MPs is to save money. How does he reconcile that with the fact that it is costing £12.3 million extra every year for the 117 extra peers he has appointed, that it is costing £11.2 million extra for bringing the boundary review forward, and that he is to double the cost of the boundary commissions by making them every five years rather than every eight?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Cutting the number of MPs will save about £12 million every year, and holding the referendum on the same day as other elections saves us about £30 million. I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman wants to incur greater costs for the taxpayer—

[Chris Bryant]

It is not incurring more.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

It is the choice of the coalition Government to say that we want to reform politics not in a piecemeal fashion, but in a meaningful way. To introduce both the right for people to have a say over the electoral system and to ensure that constituencies are of roughly the same size seems a perfectly sensible way to proceed. That is what we will do, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should be whipping up the dinosaurs in the Labour party in the other place to stop us from doing so.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

3. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on reform of the Act of Settlement.

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

I have had no recent discussions with ministerial colleagues on reforming the Act of Settlement.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am no monarchist, but does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that, if we must have a monarchy, women should have equality with men in succession?

[Mr Harper]

Ministers have already accepted that the provision in the Act of Settlement might well be discriminatory, and I have already confirmed at the Dispatch Box when responding to a previous debate, not that we are doing nothing, but that discussions are under way with other countries of which Her Majesty is Queen. She is not just our Queen, but Queen of 15 other realms, and those matters have to be taken forward together in a careful and considered way. It is not as straightforward as the hon. Gentleman would like to pretend it is.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I welcome that response. As the Minister knows, my ten-minute rule Bill on that subject is to be introduced at 3.30 pm today. Will he confirm whether I could perhaps have that response in writing before the Bill is introduced?

[Mr Harper]

I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman’s speech introducing his Bill. Discussions are under way, as has been confirmed in this House and in the other place. He knows that the Statute of Westminster states that those matters must be amended in all the other realms of which Her Majesty is Queen, and it takes only a moment’s thought to see that that is not as straightforward a process as some who would wish to move more quickly might think.

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

4. What progress he has made on plans to introduce a statutory register for lobbyists.

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

My hon. Friend should know that the Government plan to carry out a wide-ranging consultation later this year and then to bring forward legislation in the second Session of this Parliament.

[Rehman Chishti]

Does the Minister agree that for the statutory register to be effective and fit for purpose, it must be robustly transparent?

[Mr Harper]

I do, and that is a very important point. Lobbying is a perfectly reputable industry for making sure that the voices of charities and businesses are heard, but it should be transparent so that people know who is talking to those in Parliament. That is what the Government intend to do—mainly to clean up the dreadful behaviour that we saw last year, which has resulted in some former Members having their passes removed.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The purpose of lobbying is to give further advantages to the already advantaged. Is the Minister not concerned that already lobbying has taken place between his Department and BSkyB which might have the most damaging consequences for the people of this country? Should not these reforms be brought in quickly by the Tory-Lib Dem junta?

[Mr Harper]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation that all lobbying is to benefit the advantaged. Members are lobbied all the time by charitable organisations, charities and, as I found in my previous role in opposition, those who campaign on behalf of disabled people, for example. It is important, however, that such lobbying is transparent and that people know who is talking to Members of Parliament and members of the Government. That is exactly what our statutory register will achieve.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

I applaud the Minister’s efforts, but will he consider proposals to shut the revolving door between big Departments and big business contractors, which leaves taxpayers ripped off and democracy diminished?

[Mr Harper]

Processes are already in place to vet what Ministers and former Ministers do after they leave both ministerial office and this House. My hon. Friend makes a good point, and those matters are being looked into and kept under review. I am sure that he will continue pressing that point in his usual vigorous way.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

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

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

As Deputy Prime Minister, I support the Prime Minister on the full range of Government policy and initiatives. Within government, I take special responsibility for the Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform.

[Diana Johnson]

Mindful of the difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman’s rushed proposals for the AV referendum, muddled with the equally rushed boundary changes, are having in the other place, what persuaded him to insist on an electoral system that was not in his manifesto, while abandoning promises that were in his manifesto, such as votes at 16, the 3,000 more police officers and the scrapping of tuition fees?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I would have hoped that the hon. Lady would welcome and support the proposal to hold a referendum on the alternative vote system, not least for the reason that it was in her party’s manifesto at the last general election.

[Chris Bryant]

Split the Bill!

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman keeps saying “Split the Bill” from a sedentary position. We believe it is right to proceed together on reforming—[Interruption.] No—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the Deputy Prime Minister. Let me say to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and other Members that it is not too much for the Chair to ask that Members treat the Deputy Prime Minister with courtesy, whatever they think of him or his policies.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I find it extraordinary that, as I said, just a few days ago the leader of the Labour party said that he believed in new politics, but he is now using the oldest tricks in the book in the other place simply to stop the British people having their say. That is the worst kind of old politics I can imagine.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

T2. If the Deputy Prime Minister is to save the taxpayer money by holding the fairer votes referendum on the same date as other elections in other parts of the country, how much longer can the board games in the other House continue?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As I reminded the House earlier, holding the referendum on the same day that people have an opportunity to vote anyway saves the taxpayer a considerable amount of money—£30 million. If we are to have a referendum on such an important issue, it is right in principle and in practice to do so on an occasion when people are invited to vote in any event.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

T8. May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister about the referendum on the alternative vote taking place on the same day as the Scottish parliamentary elections? In Scotland, the Electoral Commission says that it does not have the resources to hold both votes on the same day. Will he agree to meet the electoral commissioner in Scotland?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My team and I are more than happy to meet the Electoral Commission with regard to Scotland. We have always maintained that the two votes are very different in nature. There are, of course, practical issues with the administration of the vote, which we are addressing. However, a vote for a devolved Parliament or Assembly and a vote on a referendum of this nature can easily be separated in the minds of voters.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

T3. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that to restore trust in politics it is essential that we reduce the cost of politics in Westminster, especially at a time when so many people are struggling with increasing costs?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Absolutely; that is why I marvel at the Labour party’s objection to saving £12 million every year by reducing the size of this place from 650 seats to 600. That is a modest cut of 7.6% which will bring the size of this Chamber into line with Parliaments in many other mature democracies. It is resisted only by Labour Members.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister about his Government’s actions on the national health service? By unleashing the biggest ever reorganisation at the very time when the NHS faces a real-terms cut in its budget, he is posing a huge threat to our national health service. How on earth can he justify that?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The only party in this House that wants to cut the NHS budget is the Labour party. The coalition Government have increased spending on the NHS. We recognise that if we want to preserve the very best of the NHS, it needs to be reformed in the years ahead. Crucially, we need a people’s NHS—[Interruption.] We need an NHS that is there to serve patients, and is not a plaything of unaccountable bureaucracies. That is why we are reducing the layers of unaccountable administration in the NHS and ensuring that the people who know patients best—the GPs—have more say in how the system works.

[Ms Harman]

Yes, it is the people’s NHS, and the Deputy Prime Minister has no mandate for the changes. Even after the general election, the coalition agreement said that there would be no “top-down reorganisation”. This is a smash and grab on the NHS. Will he make the Government think again?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As it happens, in opposition we continually made the case against an over-centralised NHS that was not responsive enough to the needs of communities and patients, and insufficiently accountable to them. That is why we are giving more power, not less, to local authorities, particularly in the area of public health, and why we are giving more financial authority to GPs, rather than less, because they know patients best—[Interruption.] Hon. Members say “The private sector”, but it was the Labour party that rigged the market through the introduction of independent treatment centres to force private sector providers in the NHS. Through the reforms, we will ensure that there is a level playing field, on which public, voluntary and private providers can compete.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

T4. Does the Deputy Prime Minister share my belief that the will of this House to equalise constituency boundaries and reduce the number of MPs should not be frustrated by the grotesque spectacle of former Labour Members, who have been rejected by the electorate, leading a filibuster in the other House?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

It is indeed a spectacle to see on the television that former Members of this House who were virtually monosyllabic here have become so very loquacious in the other place, particularly late at night, to block a simple measure that was one of the great campaigning themes of the Chartists in the century before last—namely that all votes should be of the same value and that all constituencies should be roughly the same size. I think that everyone in the country would agree with that principle, except for Opposition Members.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

A few minutes ago, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the proposed cut in the number of seats in the House of Commons was a modest 7.5%. How would he describe the 25% cut that will happen in Wales?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

It is all based on the simple principle that each constituency should represent, give or take a margin, roughly the same number of members of the public—voters—across the country. I do not think that even the hon. Gentleman would claim that Wales should somehow be exempt from that simple democratic principle.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

T5. What action will the Deputy Prime Minister take to boost social mobility in Britain?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

We have already taken a number of measures. For instance, just this April, 23 million basic-rate taxpayers will get £200 in their pockets, because we have dramatically increased the personal allowance, so that people who work hard, play by the rules and want to do best for themselves and their families get more money back. We have invested significant additional money in early years and pre-school support, with 15 hours’ free pre-school support for all three and four-year-olds, and a new entitlement for the most disadvantaged children at the age of two. We are delivering the pupil premium, which by the end of this Parliament will mean a full £2.5 billion of extra money targeted at the most disadvantaged children, who were let down by the school system that we inherited from the previous Government.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

The system by which we elect parliamentarians is enormously important. We should have a proper debate and discussion in this country. If the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill is not passed through the Houses of Parliament, how does the Deputy Prime Minister plan to allow for a full 10 weeks of campaigning, as recommended by the Electoral Commission?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

It will be passed; we are determined that it shall be passed. It cannot be right that the Opposition, having failed to make their case in this place, are now using the lowest forms of foot-dragging in the other place to prevent this Government from proceeding with the political reforms that the hon. Lady’s party used to believe in.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

T6. Section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983 means that any Member of this House who is in receipt of long-term mental health care forfeits his seat. We know that, nationwide, one in five people suffers from a mental health condition. No doubt the same figure applies in this House, yet no Member has ever spoken at length about their mental health conditions. What plans does the Deputy Prime Minister have to follow the recommendation of last year’s Speaker’s Conference to repeal section 141 of the 1983 Act?

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As we can hear from the reaction on both sides of the House, my hon. Friend has highlighted a very important issue, concerning a provision that the Speaker’s Conference rightly identified should be repealed. It is simply not right that under section 141 of the Mental Health Act MPs lose their seats if they are detained in hospital under the Act for more than six months. We will shortly come forward with announcements to repeal section 141.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Does the Deputy Prime Minister intend to propose Elwyn Watkins, his twice-failed candidate in Oldham East and Saddleworth, for the House of Lords?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I have not lent it any thought so far.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

T7. The Deputy Prime Minister’s proposed recall mechanism will apply only to MPs, and its use will be possible only with the permission of a narrow, parliamentary committee. Will he consider expanding the mechanism, to include other elected representatives, and revising it, so that recall decisions lie with constituents, not parliamentary committees?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The coalition agreement stipulates that we want to introduce a recall mechanism, as exists in parts of north America and elsewhere, for those parliamentarians who have committed wrongdoing. It is important that it should not be a completely arbitrary mechanism; it should be shown that serious wrongdoing has been committed. We have recently seen various serving or former MPs in court, with one having been convicted and been handed down a prison sentence, and the public have been reminded that they do not want to be left powerless when they see such wrongdoing occurring. They do not want to wait until the next general election to have their say; they want to be able to force a by-election themselves. We will come forward with the detail of our ideas on how to do that shortly. I hear what my hon. Friend says about wanting the mechanism to be extended to other bodies immediately, but I hope that when he sees our proposals, he will recognise that we are taking a significant step in favour of giving people that recall power.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

Last week the Deputy Prime Minister spoke of “alarm clock Britain”. Given the collapse of Liberal Democrat support in the opinion polls and the complete rejection of the Liberal Democrats in Oldham East and Saddleworth, will he heed the wake-up call before his MPs and party are forced to face electoral oblivion?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I heard the same predictions before the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election—that we would disappear without trace into complete oblivion—but our share of the vote went up. Honestly, the utter—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I wish to hear the Deputy Prime Minister. I would happily hear him for longer if there were more time, but there is not.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

It went up because many people in Oldham East and Saddleworth and elsewhere recognise that we are doing a very difficult job in difficult circumstances. Why? Because we inherited the most unholy mess from the previous Labour Government, who have now forced us—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) might just want to listen. We are spending £120 million every single day simply to pay off the interest on the debt caused by his party when it was in government. That is enough to build a primary school every single hour. What waste. What a terrible legacy.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

T9. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to review, amend or repeal sections 3 to 18 of the Digital Economy Act 2010, which was rushed through so awfully by the last Government?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

This Government do not believe that people should be able to share content unlawfully, but we are disappointed that the industry has not made faster progress towards adapting its business models to meet consumer demand. I agree with my hon. Friend that there are legitimate concerns about the workability of some aspects of the Digital Economy Act. The Government are looking actively at those questions now, and we will make an announcement in due course.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

May I suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister that the reputation of this House is being maligned during the debate on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill? That is because Front-Bench spokespersons for the coalition have continually said that we are not interested in the Bill in this place, and that we could have debated the amendments that the Lords are debating at the moment. That is simply untrue. I was one of 20 Members who was standing during the debate in Committee on the Welsh constituency boundaries, and we were not called to speak. So it is simply not true to say that people in this House are not interested in the excellent discussion that is taking place up the corridor.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I wonder whether the right hon. Lady would characterise the debate taking place in the other place as “excellent” if she were to have a look at the foot-dragging that is now taking place on the Labour Benches there. I am sorry if she was not called to speak during the debate on the Bill when it passed through this place, but, as she knows, there were eight full days of debate on the Bill, which was subject to the fullest possible scrutiny.

The Attorney-General was asked—

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

1. How many specialist rape prosecutors there are in the Crown Prosecution Service.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

The appointment of specialist rape prosecutors is the responsibility of local chief Crown prosecutors, who appoint specialist prosecutors in accordance with the requirements of their area. The Crown Prosecution Service is currently unable to provide figures as to how many specialist rape prosecutors there are in the CPS. However, the CPS has trained and appointed a significant number of prosecutors as specialist rape prosecutors as part of a rolling programme in all 42 CPS areas. By the end of March 2011, all training for 2010-11 will be completed, and the information on the number of specialists will then be available.

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the Attorney-General for his response. May I remind him that the Stern report said that nine out of 10 rapes go unreported? Given the 25% cuts in the budget of the CPS, will he assure us that all those who have been trained by the end of March 2011 will be in jobs?

[The Attorney-General]

First, I can give the hon. Lady a figure: 584 delegates are shown as having attended the rape and serious assault training course between July 2008 and December 2010. That might help to give her an idea of the numbers. There is no intention that the priority that is given to this extremely serious offence should be in any way downgraded as a result of savings having to be made within the Crown Prosecution Service.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

2. What responsibilities the Law Officers’ Departments have for the National Fraud Authority.

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)]

The National Fraud Authority is an Executive agency of the Attorney-General’s Office, which is the authority’s sponsoring Department. The Law Officers are the Ministers accountable to Parliament for the work of the agency.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful for that answer. Given the estimated £30 billion cost to the UK economy of fraud, does the Solicitor-General agree that the coalition’s spending cuts must not undermine the work of the National Fraud Authority?

[The Solicitor-General]

I would agree, and they will not.

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

3. What support the Law Officers’ Departments have provided for the investigation by the Metropolitan Police Service into alleged telephone hacking and blagging; and if he will make a statement.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

The roles of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are distinct. The police investigate allegations of criminal conduct; the Crown Prosecution Service provides them with advice, when requested to do so, and takes prosecution decisions. The constitutional role of the Law Officers is to superintend the CPS. The Law Officers are not involved in the provision of such advice. On 14 January, the Director of Public Prosecutions announced that the CPS would conduct a comprehensive assessment of all material in the possession of the Metropolitan Police Service relating to phone hacking, following developments in the civil courts in cases taking place on this issue. The purpose of this assessment is to ascertain whether there is any material that could now form evidence in any future criminal prosecution relating to phone hacking.

[Mr Watson]

Are the Law Officers confident that the CPS is giving the right advice? In particular, is it asking the Metropolitan police to examine the separate secure e-mail server used by News International executives of the grades of Andy Coulson and Rebekah Wade and also to examine the existing illegally transcribed phone message made by Ross Hall for “Neville”?

[The Attorney-General]

The hon. Gentleman may have seen a copy of the letter written by Mr Yates, the acting deputy commissioner, to the Director of Public Prosecutions. That letter makes it quite clear that he wishes to re-examine all the material collected in this matter and then to seek the advice of the CPS and the DPP in relation to it.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Does the Attorney-General agree that it is important for this matter not to be just a witch hunt against the Murdoch press, which is what the Opposition are trying to turn it into? The Information Commissioner’s report published some time ago made it plain that this habit of hacking and bad behaviour by reporters was happening across the whole of the press, not just in the Murdoch press. Will he make sure that the issue does not become concerned only with the Murdoch press, but that the investigation is carried out on a wider basis?

[The Attorney-General]

I am not going to be drawn into making criticisms of any individual in this matter. What is quite clear is that the hacking into telephones is indeed a serious criminal offence, that the Crown Prosecution Service will apply the code of Crown prosecutors in order to weigh up the information and evidence available, and that it is plainly in the public interest for proceedings to be brought against individuals where there is evidence that an offence has been committed.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

As the Attorney-General is aware, serious concerns have been expressed about the handling of the News of the World phone hacking investigations to date. The announcement of a comprehensive assessment of all the material held by the Metropolitan Police Service is to be welcomed, but will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm whether he shares these concerns about the handling of the case to date? Will he clarify what prompted this change in direction only a matter of weeks after the CPS announced that there was no admissible evidence on which it could properly advise the police to bring criminal charges?

[The Attorney-General]

The hon. Lady must understand that any investigation in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors must take account of the information and evidence available. If evidence and information become available that warrant looking further at a matter, that is exactly what happens. In this particular case, as I indicated in my first answer, information has emerged in the course of civil proceedings, which gives rise to a justification and reason for looking again at the material. That is exactly what the police and the CPS are going to do.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

4. On how many occasions decisions by Ministers have been overturned on judicial review in the last five years.

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)]

Figures for the number of occasions on which decisions by Ministers have been overturned on judicial review in whole or in part over the last five years are not held centrally, and such information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

[Tony Baldry]

Well, there have clearly been quite a number. Does not the Solicitor-General’s response highlight the fact that the concept and reality of parliamentary sovereignty are often misunderstood and that, increasingly, the last word on what Parliament has decided will not be determined here, but by the judges on the other side of Parliament square, in the Supreme Court? The increase in judicial review is a reality that is now part of our constitutional fabric.

[The Solicitor-General]

I do not think that my hon. Friend, who is an eminent member of the Bar, is at all confused about the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. Nor, if I may say so, is our right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, who responded to the debate on clause 18 of the European Union Bill last Tuesday.

Judicial review has increasingly become part of the legal armoury since the second world war. Ministers, whether of the present Government or the last, are not above the law, and it is for our independent judiciary to arbitrate, through judicial review cases, in disputes between the citizen and the state. The courts apply the laws enacted by Parliament, and Parliament can make, amend and repeal legislation as it thinks fit.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Given the increase in judicial activism and, in particular, legislative activism on the part of the judiciary, is it not important for us to examine much more closely the qualifications and background of the individuals who are making these decisions, so that we can ensure that the judiciary is much more representative of the society from which we all come?

[The Solicitor-General]

That is a point of view. I tend to think that judges ought to be highly professional, legally qualified and of the highest intellect. If the hon. Gentleman takes a different view, perhaps he will let us know.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What estimate he has made of the likely funding required by the Crown Prosecution Service to implement proposals to restrict arrest warrants in private prosecutions.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

The Crown Prosecution Service continues to assess the costs of implementing the proposals to restrict arrest warrants in private prosecutions. The service currently expects any additional costs to be absorbed in current resources. I should point out that such private prosecutions relate solely to cases involving international jurisdiction.

[Mr Love]

What guidelines are likely to be set in relation to the time that the Director of Public Prosecutions is given in which to respond to private arrest warrant applications, and will those guidelines take into account late notification of arrivals?

[The Attorney-General]

By its very nature, the system that is likely to operate when such references are made to the DPP will involve extremely short time frames. The point has been well made in the House that it is much better to go to the police and make a complaint, because the police can arrest, interview, search and conduct forensic examinations. If an application is made through a private prosecution or through the DPP, all that is possible is for a person to be taken immediately to court. I have no doubt that the DPP will ensure that he can operate within a time frame that reflects the urgency of the matter concerned.

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

I welcome the fact that Ministers are dealing with the matter, and that they are doing so by using the DPP rather than the Attorney-General as the person to whom reference can be made. Will this be covered in any way by the superintendence responsibilities of the Attorney-General, or will it be clear that the DPP has an independent role in the matter?

[The Attorney-General]

The decision will be that of the Director of Public Prosecutions. As in all matters, if the DPP wishes to consult the law officers in relation to their superintendence, it will be open to him to do so.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Does the Attorney-General not agree that the reputation of the country would be better served if the current system whereby private individuals can seek prosecutions in the courts, or seek arrest warrants in the courts for crimes against humanity or war crimes, were preserved rather than taken away and handed over to public officials?

[The Attorney-General]

I think that the reputation of the country will be best preserved through proper and targeted work by the police and prosecutors to bring to justice those who have a case to answer. The reputation of the country will not be served if the use of private prosecutions is seen merely as a tool of harassment, and there is no proper outcome from an arrest.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

6. What recent representations he has received on the effectiveness of prosecutions in human trafficking cases.

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)]

We have not received any.

[Lisa Nandy]

Is the Solicitor-General aware that many solicitors still face many problems taking instructions from child victims of trafficking who wrongly believe that their trafficker is their friend? If the Government are serious about ensuring that there are more prosecutions for this heinous crime, why will they not ensure that every child who undergoes the gruelling, awful court process is afforded a guardian to represent his or her best interests?

[The Solicitor-General]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing my attention to the fact that someone of that nature is not available. I had hoped that that was the case. I will make some inquiries of the Crown Prosecution Service to establish what assistance of that sort can be given, but it is fair to point out that the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service already bend over backwards to ensure that vulnerable witnesses, be they children or vulnerable adults, are afforded every possible protection so that they can give their evidence. Without the evidence, we cannot have the convictions.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions on the Crown Prosecution Service’s performance in the prosecution of cases involving allegations of domestic violence.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions on the Crown Prosecution Service’s performance in the prosecution of cases involving allegations of domestic violence.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

I have regular discussions with the DPP on a range of criminal matters. Domestic violence is a serious crime, which has real and lasting effects on the victim, their children, their wider family and society as a whole. I support the work undertaken by the CPS with other agencies to improve the way in which prosecutions are conducted and victims are treated in such cases.

[Luciana Berger]

How will the CPS prosecute domestic violence cases in the approximately 10 areas where proposed court closures include specialist domestic violence courts?

[The Attorney-General]

The hon. Lady raises an important issue, of which we are extremely mindful. Work is currently taking place within the court estate rationalisation programme, working in conjunction with the domestic violence national steering group, to issue guidance in those areas where provision may be affected. The detail of that will be finalised once the decisions and announcements are made. The CPS is absolutely determined to maintain the current quality of provision.

[Gavin Shuker]

The Attorney-General acknowledges that the domestic violence prosecution rate improved greatly under the last Labour Administration. What measures will he put in place to ensure that it continues to improve against the backdrop of the 25% cut to the CPS budget?

[The Attorney-General]

We are doing a number of things. We are developing the recently launched cross-Government violence against women strategic narrative. For the CPS, we agreed on a number of steps to improve domestic violence prosecutions and the safety and support of victims, including specialist co-ordinators, guidance in respect of stalking, effective monitoring of cases and legislation, and ways to improve communication with victims. In addition, guidance for prosecutors on stalking and harassment cases was launched in September 2010, and a new violence against women assurance regime was launched on 1 January 2011. As there is not enough time available now to allow me to amplify my remarks further, I will be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with details of some of the things we are doing.

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

Will my right hon. and learned Friend do all he can to ensure that all Government agencies and Departments have a unified definition of domestic violence, as there seem to be alarming differences in that definition between different Departments, and that needs to be remedied at the earliest opportunity?

[The Attorney-General]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to my attention. It might be helpful if I have a conversation with him so he can identify in greater detail where he thinks these current misdescriptions exist. I entirely agree that it is important that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet.

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

1. Whether the Church Commissioners have made an estimate of the number of redundant churches converted to other uses in the past five years.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)]

In the last five years, there have been 117 schemes for dealing with churches that are no longer being used as regular places of worship, 93 of which have resulted in their being provided for alternative use.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. St Mary’s church in Nelson is probably the largest church in my constituency, and it has a 170-feet high tower and spire. However, it was last used for worship in 1989, and it has remained boarded up and empty since its deconsecration. Although St Mary’s itself is now owned by a heritage trust, will my hon. Friend tell the House what the Church Commissioners are doing to ensure that redundant churches are put to good use?

[Tony Baldry]

Nelson St Mary was closed for worship in 1987. At that point, a decision would have been made whether to transfer it to the Churches Conservation Trust as a redundant church or to sell it. It was sold in 1989, and at that point the Church Commissioners’ responsibility for the building ceased.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many churches can remain in use while adapting to accommodate other uses? Will he commend the work of English Heritage and its field officers in trying to achieve that, and will he so organise the affairs of the Church Commissioners that they encourage and facilitate this kind of continuing useful worship?

[Tony Baldry]

Absolutely. Increasingly, churches are being put to other uses, ranging from post offices to shops, and from community centres to internet cafés. There are 19,000 churches across the country and in many communities the church is the most prominent public building, so we want to make sure that churches are used as much as possible, rather than just for a couple of hours each week on a Sunday.

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission was asked—

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

2. What steps the Electoral Commission plans to take in respect of areas where voter registration remains low.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)]

The Electoral Commission monitors the performance of electoral registration officers using a set of published performance standards designed to support the completeness of electoral registers. The Electoral Commission advises and works with local authorities that do not meet the standards in order to improve their performance.

[Robert Halfon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Where electoral registration officers are failing on the ground, what specific powers does the Electoral Commission have to intervene?

[Mr Streeter]

My hon. Friend is on to a good point. The Electoral Commission has the power to make recommendations to electoral registration officers—after all, they are primarily responsible for concluding the registers—if they are underperforming, but it has no power to intervene and change the way that things are done. This may be something that the House might like to examine in due course.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that, peculiarly, electoral registration officers are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, so obtaining information from them if they refuse to give it is extremely difficult. Will he examine this point, because it seems that all other local authority officers are subject to this legislation, but electoral registration officers are not?

[Mr Streeter]

I am sure that the Electoral Commission was aware of that point. I was not, but I will certainly take it back to the Electoral Commission and to the relevant Departments to make sure that it is examined, because there seems to be a bit of an anomaly.

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

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

3. What representations the Church Commissioners have made in support of Christians in Pakistan.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)]

It is a sad and terrible fact that Christian minorities who have lived peacefully in Muslim countries for generations are finding themselves subject to increasingly violent persecution. Churches have recently been attacked in Egypt, Iraq and Nigeria, and the assassination in Pakistan of Salmaan Taseer for defending a Christian woman who had been sentenced to death was particularly horrible. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Bishop of Lahore and, indeed, the Christian community as a whole in Pakistan are working hard to foster inter-faith collaboration in Pakistan during this time of difficulty.

[Rehman Chishti]

Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the former assassinated Governor of Punjab, Salmaan Taseer, for the work that he did on this particular issue? Will my hon. Friend ensure that representations are made to the Government of Pakistan to ensure that the excellent work of Governor Taseer can continue?

[Tony Baldry]

Salmaan Taseer was an incredibly brave man and his death is a tragedy for Pakistan. We would all do well to remember the words of Jinnah, the father of Pakistan, who said in terms that

“you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship”.

What I suspect every Member of this House hopes for is that there shall be freedom of religion throughout the world, and I am sure that, as a Chamber, we will continue to campaign for that wherever we have the opportunity.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

4. What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to help support Christians in Sudan.

[Tony Baldry]

The Church of England supports the Episcopal Church of Sudan. The dioceses of Bradford and Salisbury have diocesan links to Sudan and have done great work in the region to support the Christian community, as has Christian Aid.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. It looks as though there will be a new state of Southern Sudan, but it will face enormous challenges. Meanwhile, Christian minorities in the north of Sudan will face continued persecution, as organisations such as Christian Solidarity Worldwide have highlighted during many years of work across Sudan. Will the Church of England do what it can to support and protect Christians and other minorities in the north of Sudan, while also helping, where appropriate, in Southern Sudan?

[Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about this. Minority groups in northern Sudan have faced persecution, which is one of the many problems facing people in the region. Most southern Sudanese live on less than $1 a day, the country has almost no infrastructure—there are just 38 miles of tarmacked road in an area the size of France—and people are traumatised by years of rape and killings. I am sure that the Church of England and non-governmental organisations such as Christian Aid and Christian Solidarity Worldwide will give the people of Southern Sudan all possible support. Indeed, it behoves all of us to do what we can to support what may soon be the newest member of the United Nations as it sets out on the challenging road of nationhood.

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission was asked—

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

5. What steps the Electoral Commission has taken to reduce its spending over the next three years.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)]

The Electoral Commission plans to reduce its core costs by 27%, or approximately £4.5 million, over the next three years, mainly by cutting spending on year-round public awareness work, staffing and offices.

[Sajid Javid]

I am pleased to learn about the cost-cutting, but can my hon. Friend reassure me that the Electoral Commission will have enough funds properly to promote the upcoming alternative vote referendum? Whatever one’s views on AV—I, for the record, am against it—we must ensure that the public are aware of the referendum and its importance.

[Mr Streeter]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Levels of public awareness about the forthcoming referendum on the alternative vote system are extremely low. The Electoral Commission has a budget of just over £9 million for the main referendum, which will enable a leaflet to be distributed to every household in the United Kingdom as well as a wider public awareness campaign.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

With 3.5 million voters missing from the registers, will the Electoral Commission give even greater priority to electoral registration? With the difficulties faced by local government and the likelihood that it might look to electoral registration departments to make reductions, will the Electoral Commission ensure that the system is properly policed?

[Mr Streeter]

It is terribly important in this country that we try to achieve maximum registration of voters wherever possible. I encourage every colleague to visit their electoral registration officer and quiz them on how they are going about this important task. If any colleague is not happy with the work of an ERO in any locality, the Electoral Commission would be very pleased to hear from them.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Would the hon. Gentleman consider persuading the Electoral Commission to join the campaign for a democracy week—or democracy day—every year in March, ahead of the normal election cycle, as a very cheap and cost-effective way of raising consciousness about electoral registration and participation in elections and referendums?

[Mr Streeter]

My hon. Friend is always full of good ideas. That is another one, which I shall certainly pass on to the Electoral Commission.

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

6. How many vacancies there are for parish priests in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)]

Vacancies are managed individually by each separate diocese. The last clergy vacancy in my hon. Friend’s constituency of St Michael’s, Kirklington was filled before Christmas after a short vacancy.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am most grateful for that reply. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the number of rural parishes that vicars are asked to look after? What attention are the Church Commissioners giving to that vexing problem?

[Tony Baldry]

I am glad to say that the Church does not generally find difficulties in the recruitment of stipendiary clergy. Of course, it is for each diocese to decide how to organise parishes into benefices. I am told by the dioceses of Ripon and Leeds and of York that they do not have difficulty filling rural stipendiary posts. Clearly, the clergy find these appointments satisfying and rewarding.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

7. What assessment the Church of England has made of the likely requirement for provincial episcopal visitors following the entry into force of any legislation enabling the consecration of women bishops.

[Tony Baldry]

Provincial episcopal visitors operate under the terms of the Act of Synod, which will be rescinded if the draft legislation to enable women to become bishops is approved and brought into force. It will on any basis be at least two more years before that stage is reached and there remain important questions about how suitable episcopal oversight will be provided under the new legislation and associated code of practice for those with theological difficulties over the ordination of women.

[Diana Johnson]

Given the general climate of cutting costs and removing superfluous posts, if the welcome reform of women bishops is going to happen soon, which I hope it will, should not the new flying bishops be grounded now?

[Tony Baldry]

The provincial episcopal visitors are there under the Act of Synod. Under the Act of Synod, the archbishop is expected to take steps to secure the appointment of up to two additional suffragans in his diocese to act as provincial episcopal visitors. As I have explained, even if the Synod gives final approval to the draft legislation, the Act of Synod will remain in place for some time to come. We must keep faith with all sorts of different groups in the Church of England until there is a final decision on women bishops within the Church.

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission was asked—

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

8. What steps the Electoral Commission is taking to ensure that citizens resident overseas who are not entitled to vote are not included on electoral registers for parliamentary elections.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)]

The Electoral Commission has issued guidance to electoral registration officers on the checks they must carry out to determine whether to grant applications to register as an overseas elector. This includes checking evidence of the age of the applicant, their citizenship status and their relevant qualifying address in the United Kingdom.

[Tony Baldry]

What I want to know from my hon. Friend is what measures there are to make sure that returning officers and electoral registration officers ensure that those who are not entitled to be on the electoral register—foreign nationals and others—do not simply fill in and return the form to put themselves on the electoral register because it helps them to get other benefits and then have a vote although they are not entitled to one.

[Mr Streeter]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. He will be pleased to know that electoral registration officers have a range of powers to require extra information from people on the register, including evidence that they meet either or both of the requirements of eligibility. Other measures available to EROs are the ability to make house-to-house inquiries and to inspect other council records. However, my hon. Friend raises an important point and sends an important signal to EROs around the country to do their job well.

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

9. What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to assist in the celebration of the 400th anniversary of the King James version of the Bible.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)]

In her inauguration address to the General Synod, Her Majesty the Queen emphasised the importance of the King James Bible and the lasting impact it has had on the life of the Church and on the nation. The Archbishop of Canterbury also used his new year message to draw attention to the anniversary and enduring significance of the King James Bible. The 2011 celebrations were launched at Hampton Court and the King James Bible Trust, chaired by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), has been set up to oversee the programme of events and activities planned around the world to mark 400 years since the creation of the book that changed the world.

[Hugh Bayley]

Hundreds of words and phrases in modern English came from the King James Bible, such as, “Eat, drink and be merry,” “Grinding the faces of the poor,” “No peace for the wicked” and “Fly in the ointment.” York minster and the trust will celebrate this event in many ways this year, but what will the Church Commissioners do to make this a truly national celebration of our language and culture?

[Tony Baldry]

The Church Commissioners will give every possible support to the trust because, as the hon. Gentleman says, no book has had a greater influence on the English language. It is a masterpiece of literature that unites English-speaking people everywhere. Indeed, a number of expressions are unique to the King James Bible, some of which are relevant to politics, such as, “How are the mighty fallen,” “Set your house in order,” “Be horribly afraid”, “A thorn in the flesh,” “Let us now praise famous men” and “To everything there is a season.” My favourite phrase from the King James Bible is, “My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.”

Further and Higher Education Funding

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

On behalf of my constituents I present this petition from the staff and students of Swallow Hill community college in the Leeds West constituency.

The Petition of students and staff of Swallow Hill Community College, and others,

Declares that the Petitioners oppose the abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance; and further declares that the Petitioners oppose the Government's decision to raise Higher Education tuition fees.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse its decisions to abolish the Education Maintenance Allowance and to raise Higher Education tuition fees.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000879]

Education Maintenance Allowance

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

Seventy per cent. of the young people in City of Sunderland college are in receipt of the education maintenance allowance. Ninety per cent. of those receive the full £30.

The Petition of residents of Sunderland and the surrounding area,

Declares that the Petitioners oppose the abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance; and notes that education can provide a better future for young people.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government not to abolish the Education Maintenance Allowance.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000880]

NEW MEMBER

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

The following Member made and subscribed the Affirmation required by law:

Deborah Angela Elspeth Abrahams, for Oldham East and Saddleworth.

Points of Order

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

15:34

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you are always anxious that announcements should be made to the House of Commons first. I was very disturbed this morning to hear that the Department for Work and Pensions had made an announcement that voluntary redundancies affecting Remploy are to be made. There was press coverage in The Daily Telegraph and I believe that a statement is being issued by the Department. There is a factory in Wrexham that has among its staff a number of individuals, some of the most vulnerable members of our community, who will be desperately worried by such a statement being issued by the Department. Have you had any indication whatever that someone from the Department will be coming to the House so that we can ask questions about the detail of the proposals?

[Mr Speaker]

No. I have had no indication of an intention by a Minister to make a statement. If the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied and he thinks that a procedural impropriety has taken place, first he may find other means through the Order Paper to pursue his concerns and to air his grievances; secondly, he might want to draw the matter to the attention of the Procedure Committee, which is looking into issues of this kind.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today we were told through the media that there would be no movement on a rural fuel derogation, which would have taken 5p off a litre in certain areas. In my Hebridean constituency, people have paid up to £1.45 a litre, which includes the recent, quickly implemented, VAT rise.

Only 100 days ago, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told a Lib Dem conference that

“I can announce to you today that with my approval, Treasury officials have started the process of engaging with the European Commission on our detailed plans”.

Can we have these announcements in Parliament, and get the relevant Treasury Minister to the Dispatch Box, so that we have a full and clear picture of what this Government are doing and a timetable set out, so that they do not shilly-shally for four years like the previous Labour Government?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point with great force, but it is not a point of order for the Chair. I will leave it there today.

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 20 December, I asked the Transport Secretary in this House about the Government’s response to winter weather in my constituency. The Transport Secretary undertook to write to me that afternoon with the Government’s reply. I have so far not received a response, and when I called the Transport Department today, the correspondence unit informed me that no letter had been sent. Can you help me understand whether I should expect a reply from the Minister?

[Mr Speaker]

It is possible that as a result of the point of order that the hon. Gentleman has just raised, the reply for which he is waiting may soon arrive. I can say beyond that only that the hon. Gentleman will have doggedly to pursue the matter if necessary, but of course it is right both that Members should get speedy answers to their questions and that promised letters to Members should be sent timeously.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe earnestly that this is a real point of order; it is a procedural matter. You may remember that in order to involve the House further in public appointments, there were introduced only a short time ago pre-appointment hearings for particular jobs. I understand today that the Secretary of State for Education has appointed a new children’s commissioner with no pre-appointment hearing at all.

[Mr Speaker]

Off the top of my head, it is not a matter of order for the Chair. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that the Select Committee that scrutinises the relevant Department might well be interested in the matter, and it is a Select Committee of which I think, as a previous Chair, the hon. Gentleman has very substantial experience. It may serve him well in the matter.

If there are no further points of order, we come now to the ten-minute rule motion for which the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) has been waiting patiently and without complaint.

Succession to the Crown

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

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

15:39

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove any distinction between the sexes in determining the succession to the Crown.

At very outset, I need to declare my interest. No. I am not one of those who is in line to the throne. However, I am a fervent monarchist. I believe passionately that the British monarchy is an institution widely respected and highly regarded in this country and greatly admired abroad and that the current occupant of the throne will go down in history as one of the greatest monarchs that we have ever had. This one-clause Bill therefore seeks to celebrate the monarchy and strengthen it, rather than to cause any mischief.

For the past 300 years, the basis for succeeding to the throne has been determined by male preference primogeniture. A product of the 17th century’s constitutional developments, the Act of Settlement 1701 enshrined men as first in line to the throne regardless of age.

At this time, the next in line to the throne is His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. He is followed by His Royal Highness Prince William. The Bill will not affect that line of succession. Only a couple of months ago, the House joined the rest of the country in celebrating the engagement of Prince William to Miss Catherine Middleton. This is therefore the right time to look at the issue.

Any daughters of Prince William would not succeed their father to the throne if they had a male sibling younger than them. Whereas that might have been acceptable in another age, I believe that at this time in our history Britain is a modern, egalitarian society and that this ought to be reflected in our succession rules. Thus, before any question arises over the heir to the throne, we need to resolve it now. History has shown us the need for absolute clarity. I have known for a long time, and the Leader of the Opposition discovered recently, that it is always better to know where we stand with respect to our siblings, royal or otherwise.

At the centre of this debate is a great principle: gender equality. In Britain, we have had a woman Prime Minister and continue to see more women in the House, though we need even more. The reality is that the public want more women to take high office. The 2001 census showed that Britain is a majority female country: 52% compared with 48% men. The success of women is nowhere better reflected than in the monarchy.

Three of the country’s longest-serving and most successful monarchs have been women. The 58-year reign of Queen Elizabeth I during that golden age, and Queen Victoria’s 64-year reign, when Britannia literally ruled the waves, are only two examples; another is our current monarch. Queen Elizabeth II has for 58 years led Britain through dramatic and significant changes in an outstanding and exemplary manner and will celebrate her diamond jubilee in 2012.

Queens have served Britain longer and, some would argue, with more stability than Kings. It might be pertinent to mention that Her Majesty may never have become Queen if her father, King George VI, and her mother, Queen Elizabeth, had had a younger son instead of a younger daughter, Princess Margaret.

Parliament has in the past demonstrated its ability to act against male dominance in the line of succession. In 1688, when James II fled the country, Parliament decreed that he had “abdicated the government” and the throne was offered to his daughter, Mary, and her husband, William of Orange, as joint rulers, rather than his son, James Francis Edward Stuart, the Old Pretender.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

That’s all right.

[Keith Vaz]

James was not a member of the Scottish National party.

Our country leads the way in equality issues, and that should be reflected in our succession rules. Comparing our succession laws internationally highlights the advancement of our European counterparts. The House might often be wary of looking to our European partners to set the standards but, on equality in succession rules, I am afraid that Europe is ahead of the game.

Five monarchies have already eliminated male dominance and introduced equality. In Sweden, after the retroactive approval of equal succession rights in 1979, the older Victoria became Crown Princess over her younger brother, Prince Carl Phillip, and she will be the future Queen of Sweden. In the Netherlands, equal succession was adopted in 1983 under the reign of Queen Beatrix. In Norway, the adoption of equal succession rights in 1990 will not allow Princess Märtha Louise to be Queen over her younger brother, but the rights will apply to his children. In Belgium, a system that excluded females entirely from succeeding to the throne was replaced in 1991, allowing Princess Elisabeth to be second in line to the throne. The Danish public approved a referendum in 2009 whereby women could succeed equally to the throne.

Sex discrimination has been illegal in the United Kingdom since 1975. Some 35 years after the passage of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Britain’s employers must ensure equality between the sexes. Those who break the law are rightly punished. The Bill attempts to bring such gender equality into our succession rules.

There is clearly cross-party support for the Bill in the House, and I thank all the Bill’s supporters for backing the measure. There is also significant public support. A YouGov poll following the royal engagement highlighted strong public support for equality in succession. More than 70% of those polled felt that men and women should be treated equally in the line of succession to the throne. A poll last weekend in probably the most respected local newspaper in the world—the Leicester Mercury—also confirmed that view, with 68% of those who participated agreeing that there should be equal rights to succession.

As is required for a constitutional change of this kind, I have written to Her Majesty, the Prince of Wales, Prince William, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament and the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly. I have also written to the Prime Ministers of all 15 Commonwealth countries whose sovereign is still the Queen to ask for their support, as the right of primogeniture holds force in those countries.

Today, I received a reply from Her Majesty’s private secretary, who wrote:

“The Queen has asked me to thank you for your letter of 20th December with its kind sentiments about the forthcoming marriage of Prince William with Miss Catherine Middleton. You made reference to the Bill which you will be proposing in Parliament on 18th January to which you hoped Her Majesty would be willing to lend her support.

It was most thoughtful of you to have alerted the Queen to your interest and you can be certain that the proceedings in Parliament will, as always in such matters, be followed here with close interest. As to Her Majesty’s own views, it is of course her custom only to act in matters of this kind on the advice of her Ministers. In this particular case, the fundamental issue is one upon which the common advice of all sixteen of the Commonwealth Realms would first be required. You will…be aware of the…British Government’s position as expressed by Lord McNally in the House of Lords”.

It is therefore over to the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper)—the Minister sitting on the Front Bench—to give his advice to the monarchy.

There are many champions of the equality movement in the House and many more outside. You, Mr Speaker, have been a fervent supporter of gender equality and diversity within Parliament for many years. We have heard much about the film “The King’s Speech” in recent weeks, but let us focus today on the speeches of our future Queens. We have a 21st century monarch and we need 21st century succession rules to match. God save not only this Queen but our future Kings and Queens to come, but let them succeed to the throne on the basis of equality—a noble and vital principle that should be the cornerstone of all political and public life. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Keith Vaz, Lorely Burt, Lorraine Fullbrook, Siobhain McDonagh, Sir Peter Bottomley, Bob Russell, Valerie Vaz, Simon Hughes, Martin Caton and Nick de Bois present the Bill.

Keith Vaz accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 May, and to be printed (Bill 133).

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, HC 436, and the Government’s response, Cm 7951.]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Committee

New clause 3

Application of Parliament Act 1911 to section 1

‘(1) The Parliament Act 1911 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 2(1), after “five years”, there is inserted “or a Bill amending section 1 of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011”.’.—(Jacob Rees-Mogg.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

15:50

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—Expiry and revival of section 2—

‘(1) Section 2 expires when the Parliament summoned to meet in May 2010 dissolves.

(2) In the course of the first month of the day of first meeting of any Parliament after the expiry of section 2 as a result of subsection (1) above, the Minister may by order bring the section back into force for the remainder of that Parliament.

(3) An order made under subsection (2) above is to be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.

(4) If no order has been made under subsection (2) above, an early parliamentary general election is to take place only if the House has passed a motion that there should be an early parliamentary general election.

(5) The polling day for an early parliamentary general election under subsection (4) above is to be the day appointed by Her Majesty by proclamation on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

(6) If a polling day is appointed under subsection (5) above, the reference in section 1(4) to the polling day for a parliamentary general election appointed under section 2(6) shall be construed as if referring to a day appointed under subsection (5) above.’.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

May I begin by thanking the Minister for the enormous courtesy, good manners and good temper with which he has responded to the many criticisms of the Bill? I, among others, do not think it the best Bill ever to have come before Parliament, but he has invariably answered questions kindly. I also thank the Clerks for warning me that I was, in their terminology, to “open the batting” in this debate, which I might not otherwise have known. As far as cricketing metaphors go, I am probably more of a night watchman than a Geoffrey Boycott, or Somerset’s own Trescothick, but I shall bat on with regard to the Parliament Act 1911 and my new clause in relation to it.

The 1911 Act, as the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) reminded us earlier today, was introduced, broadly, as a temporary measure. The preamble to the Act says:

“whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation”,

but “immediately” has now extended to 100 years of failure to introduce a popular rather than an hereditary form, although not all elements of heredity remain in the upper House. The 1911 Act still allows the House of Commons to get through major constitutional reforms that the House of Lords may oppose.

The reason for introducing my new clause to exempt purely the first section of the Bill—the bit that limits the life of a Parliament specifically to five years, rather than continuing with the flexibility that we have previously had—is that this is a crucial constitutional development that we should be careful about changing, willy-nilly, as coalitions come and go. Our constitution should be safeguarded and preserved; it is not something that should be treated lightly or in an airy-fairy fashion—and one thing that the House of Lords can do, and does extraordinarily well, is prevent that from happening.

By the way, it is notable that their lordships sat throughout last night, fulfilling their proper constitutional role of ensuring that a serious constitutional change is properly debated and reviewed. We in this House find that guillotines come crashing down upon our necks to prevent the detailed deliberation that some of us might like over a rapid raft of changes to the constitution, but their lordships—some of whom are not in their first youth—have stayed up overnight, battling for the great British constitution, which has served us extraordinarily well for hundreds of years. Looking upon their lordships as the guardians of the constitution is a good reason for ensuring that the measure cannot be changed without their consent and approval.

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

I have listened quite attentively to the hon. Gentleman’s quite interesting opening remarks. Will he clarify something for me? If a party’s manifesto—I appreciate that this is a bizarre concept for Liberal Democrats—contained a plan to reduce the length of a Parliament, should the House of Lords have the opportunity effectively to veto the will of the people?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That is a very helpful intervention, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for it. I think the House of Lords would almost certainly follow the Salisbury convention in that respect, and it would be wrong of it to go against the clearly expressed will, in a manifesto, of the lower House. The point of this measure is as a protection and a safeguard, not as a die-in-the-ditch stalling method to prevent any reform in future. It may be that, had I been around in 1911, I would have been all in favour of dying in a ditch to prevent reform, but I was not, and that is not the purpose of the new clause.

It is worth noting that the Bill is not subject to the Parliament Act 1911. The reason for that is that it extends the life of Parliament, potentially. It gives the Prime Minister the discretion—the ability—to extend the life of a Parliament from five years to a maximum of five years and two months. As we all know, the Parliament Act requires that that can be done only with the consent of the House of Lords, and cannot be pushed through if that consent were refused.

That leads me on to the reason why that was in the Parliament Act. Why was it thought sensible in 1911, when the Liberals were last in independent government—although they had some Irish help—to put in a clause that safeguarded the length of time that a Parliament could sit? It was done to prevent a tyranny of the lower House—to prevent a lower House from extending its life or changing its ability to serve for a particular time whenever it felt like it.

The relevant section is section 2, which states:

“If any Public Bill (other than a Money Bill or a Bill containing any provision to extend the maximum duration of Parliament beyond five years) is passed by the House of Commons…”

So any Bill which extends the life of Parliament beyond five years is excluded from the functioning of the Parliament Act. That is relevant to this Bill, because it changes the basis on which the lifetime of a Parliament is calculated. It would therefore be logical to say that the safeguard in the 1911 Act should be extended to it too, so that it is clear that a new Government cannot come in and play fast and loose with the new Act. It would also give clarity to the Government’s purpose.

Many of us want to know whether the Act—or Bill, as it currently is—is about coalition and about two parties which, over a weekend in early May, were deeply distrustful of each other, or whether it is about major constitutional reform that it is thought will improve the settlement and the democracy of our nation.

The reason why I mention the weekend in May when the parties may have distrusted each other is that I have a feeling that that distrust has broadly evaporated. I think there is now great fellow feeling, at least in the hierarchies of the two parties, between the two sides that they work well together and are committed to some major reforms. The Liberal Democrats have made some admirable and brave decisions, particularly in relation to tuition fees, that have shown that their heart is in the right place in terms of the coalition, and how they have been willing to sacrifice part of their manifesto for it.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Did the hon. Gentleman hear the severe criticism expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister at Deputy Prime Minister’s questions concerning the activities of the other House last night?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue. I did hear what the Deputy Prime Minister said about the upper House. Most unusually—because in the spirit of coalition I usually find that I hang on every word of the Deputy Prime Minister in almost entire agreement with it—I had to divert from him on that occasion. I have always thought that Governments make a mistake when they think that they will always be in government, and therefore that it ought always to be easy to pass legislation.

I think it ought to be difficult to pass legislation, because we will not always be in power, yet we represent 40% of the electorate. Labour will not always be in power either, yet it represents 40% of the electorate. Those large minorities ought always to be taken into account—and the one power that they have is the power to delay. It was a great mistake of the previous Government to allow our proceedings to be so truncated. That means that now the present Government are, regrettably, doing the same on constitutional issues. That is the inevitable consequence of what happened between 1997 and 2010.

I would like to see the House of Lords maintain its ability to delay. “Filibuster” may be a good word. I am hoping that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will give us a definition of “filibuster”. He has given us regular definitions of the word “gerrymander”, and it is rather an expertise of his. I hope that “filibuster” may be defined later on.

I think it important that that right to delay be preserved, and that the House of Lords should have it. As I have said, that House has the crucial constitutional function of protecting our constitution from what Lord Hailsham referred to as elective dictatorship. I do not think that we have elective dictatorship, but I do not think that it would be impossible to get to it, and that means that we must preserve some elements of the constitution on which the House of Lords will have the final say, as if on an Act prior to 1911.

16:00

I said that I thought the new clause was a test of the Government’s seriousness about the Bill, but another test of that is in new clause 5, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) will speak to shortly. It is broadly the same test, but the other way round. It says to Her Majesty’s Government, “If you think that this is really for only one Parliament and that is the be-all and end-all, so that it really is about coalition and keeping two parties that were mistrustful but are now devoted partners together, the Bill will not be needed in its current form for future Parliaments.”

It seems to me that Her Majesty’s Government are in an either/or situation; they are between a rather friendly Scylla, which is me, and the perhaps more hostile Charybdis, which is my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. If they think that the Bill is not a serious Bill but is just for the short term of coalition, they will reject my new clause, but that means that they ought to accept my hon. Friend’s new clause, as he is saying that it is clearly a short-term Bill that should last only for the duration of this Parliament. They must consider that in their response.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman imagine that the Government would be on such strong ground in trying to railroad things through without the support of both Houses if they had reformed the upper House before starting to tinker with this place?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The reform of the other place will be a matter of great interest, although it is worth bearing in mind that the 1911 Act specifically states that it is to be in place only until the other place is reformed. When that time comes, this House will no doubt want to bear in mind how that Act can be reformed in response to the reform, depending on what is done to the other House. Some hon. and right hon. Members, and indeed some hon. and right hon. Friends, might be concerned about the powers that this House would lose if the 1911 Act were reformed wholesale.

New clause 3 has another important purpose. Lord Justice Laws, in the Thoburn case, which was well known in the popular press as the metric martyrs case, developed a doctrine of constitutional laws, in which he included devolution to Scotland. He would no doubt also regard an independence Act, too, as a constitutional law, which will be of interest to the hon. Gentleman who represents the Western Isles—I am afraid that I must still pronounce it as such, but I hope to learn. The European Communities Act 1972 is viewed as a constitutional Act, as is the Bill of Rights. Lord Justice Laws argued that those have a special place in the legal hierarchy and cannot be amended by implication. That means that they cannot be impliedly repealed, but only specifically repealed. That was quite a constitutional leap and a novel concept, but one that I think Governments have found useful, because it eases their path when changing other laws.

If we have developed this new view of constitutional laws that are superior laws—a sort of law greater than the ordinary Bills that this House and the other place pass—it seems to me that it would be better if that were decided by Parliament, rather than by the courts at a later date. That is one thing that the new clause would at least indicate. It would say that a Bill is so important and relevant, because it will determine how elections will be carried out, that it cannot be amended except with specific approval. Clearly, it would therefore be difficult for it to be impliedly repealed.

That brings me to the nub of the matter, and of the new clause. Constitutional change is the most important duty of this House, because when we change the cycle of election we change it in a way that means that we could have very different Governments. Just think what might have happened if we had had a general election in 2007. Who might have won if that had been the electoral cycle?

The right to an election is the fundamental right of the British people, with their democratic ability to decide who forms the Government, so can it possibly be right for one Government to come in and say of a Parliament, “It’ll be five years,” the next to come in and say, “Oh, actually, four years would be better,” and the one after that to say “Six,” which would still be covered by the exemption from the Parliament Acts, and to play around with the constitution—with the democratic rights of the British people—in a way that involves no checks on them and no ability to say that that is now the settled will of Parliament and of the British people?

I think that in the House of Lords, as it currently is or in any reform of it, we have absolutely the right body to say, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) suggested, “Hold on. You did not have this in a manifesto. This is an inappropriate way of changing our constitution, without the consent of the British people and without a referendum, which might be a better way of doing it, so we are blocking you until you have had a referendum—until some big constitutional result has been found.” The Lords have done that before.

The House of Lords has been a block on constitutional reform, and that is a good thing. Some hon. Members might think that a peculiar thing to say, but it means that reform is properly thought through and developed. I am not going to go back to the exclusion crisis and Lord Halifax’s wonderful speech to prevent the Exclusion Bill going through, but that was a very early example of the House of Lords taking a strong constitutional stance, protecting the rights of an hereditary monarchy to follow the correct path and—the bonus from my point of view—being very pro-Catholic. Certainly, however, before 1832 the House of Lords blocked every reform, and it did so until it was clear that the whole of the British people wanted such reform to take place. Indeed, the Duke of Wellington realised that for the King’s Government to carry on, reform had to take place. After he put metal shutters in Apsley house because of the riots that had occurred, he knew that reform had to take place.

In 1911 even Lord Curzon eventually decided that the reform Bill had to go through, rather than having the House of Lords flooded with a whole new batch of peers who would have pushed it through—[Interruption.] They were Liberal peers. Most of them, however, become Conservative over the generations; it is the great advantage of the hereditary system. The Bill was deeply opposed. Lord Willoughby de Broke was one of the great leaders of the opposition to that reform, and the House of Lords has had that job and done it extraordinarily well, making sure that our constitution changes not as it has done in recent years—which is a grave error—according to the will of a small clique in Downing street, but because within it there has been some important flaw that, with the support of the whole British nation, has needed improving.

I do not think that my new clause will make this Bill perfect, because one cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, but it would at least make this sow’s ear one that could not be chopped up into sausages.

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

Is not the hon. Gentleman’s panegyric on the House of Lords, and its great ability to defend our constitution by ensuring further discussion, really dedicated to defending the interests of the Conservative party?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I think that I am defending just as much the interests of the socialists of Great Grimsby and other places, because it is not in the interest of the voters of Great Grimsby to have Governments who come in and play fast and loose with the constitution; that is a really bad idea. The hon. Gentleman has been a most distinguished advocate of less European intrusion in our affairs. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] As is obvious, he has the respect of the whole House for that, but Governments have been able to play fast and loose with our constitution in a European context because there has been no check from the upper House, and because anything, ultimately, can be jammed through under the Parliament Act 1911.

With this Bill, I want to begin to say—I have proposed the same change to the European Union Bill before the House—that such important constitutional changes need much deeper and broader support than that of some, to use the late Sir Robin Day’s term, “here today, gone tomorrow” politicians. We need constitutional change that is in the historic continuum of our great nation.

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

It seems to me that my hon. Friend is very ably saying that the Government cannot have it both ways. Either they believe in a Fixed-term Parliaments Bill that requires future Governments to fix their parliamentary terms, and should therefore accept the new clause and remove the room for manoeuvre, or this is just a Bill of political convenience, they do not want fixed-term Parliaments and intend to retain the flexibility.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend for putting pithily in one intervention what it has taken me, I fear, 20 minutes to say. He is absolutely right that Her Majesty’s Government cannot have it both ways. Either the Bill is serious and important, in which case it should be exempt from the Parliament Act 1911, or it is simply the contract for a marriage of convenience and so should fall at the next general election.

[Thomas Docherty]

I will keep my remarks suitably brief. I was fascinated by the introductory remarks of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). I do not think that he had the pleasure, Mr Speaker, of hearing your October lecture to the Hansard Society on the Parliament Act 1911. Had he heard it—I believe that it is repeated continually at weekends on the BBC Parliament channel—he would have a much better understanding of the purpose of the 1911 Act. I do not propose to give a blow-by-blow account of that lecture.

I was interested by a recent interview that the hon. Gentleman gave to The House magazine—a fine tome that I am sure all hon. Members read. He described himself as a Peelite:

“I believe in free-trade, sound money and the state being less onerous upon the subject than it has been in recent years.”

Having listened to him with interest, I suggest, to extend the coalition metaphor, that he is more of a Palmerstonite, because Palmerston was a great fan of the Great Reform Act of 1832, as I am sure you know, Mr Speaker. He believed that the 1832 Act was, to use the American phrase, “a perfect union”, and that no further reform was required for the Houses of Parliament or the country. I cannot help suspecting that the hon. Gentleman would regard himself as being in the tradition that believes that the Parliament Act 1911 gave us a perfect union and that no further changes should be supported.

I was particularly concerned to hear the hon. Gentleman say that unless the whole country supported a constitutional change—I think that was the phrase he used—we should not have further change. I say to him gently that, despite the immense popularity of his Prime Minister, I cannot foresee a day in which even the great Conservative party will convince the whole country to support constitutional change. I suspect that he may be setting the bar a little too high. Traditionally, if this House is given a clear mandate by the people through a general election, that is regarded as sufficient impetus for a constitutional reform.

The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed to the exceptions in the Parliament Act 1911 for money Bills—it is interesting that his forebears in the House were keen to exempt the ability of Governments to push through the raising of revenue from the people—and for the lengthening of Parliaments. It is juggling with logic to equate the lengthening of Parliaments with the shortening of Parliaments. By its nature, that would lead to more frequent elections—which would probably be a good thing, as we saw today with the introduction of my hon. Friend our new Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). When the people are given an opportunity to speak, they tend to speak loud and clear. If the hon. Gentleman’s new clause were accepted by those on the Treasury Bench, I fear that it would restrict the democratic rights of the people to hold elections to this place more often. For that reason, I fear that the Opposition could not possibly support it. Without making any further remarks, I will now let the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) speak to his amendment.

16:15

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The simple reason why I am speaking to my amendment is that, as I indicated on Second Reading, I take the gravest exception to the Bill, for a variety of reasons.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, to whom I look forward to listening, but just for clarification, as I think he knows, we are not debating an amendment; we are debating a group of two new clauses. It is to the new clauses that he is speaking.

[Mr Cash]

Yes, indeed. I am seeking to amend the Bill through a new clause, and I am grateful to you for making that subtle distinction, Mr Speaker.

The point is that the title of the Bill is a give-away. It refers to “Parliaments”; it does not refer to “Parliament”. Therefore, there is an underlying assumption that the process in question—which is inevitably tied up with the concept of the coalition politics, which are increasingly regarded as a perpetual burden that we will be expected to comply with—is inherent in the arrangements for the proposals in the Bill. The use of the word “Parliaments”, in the plural, simply emphasises that.

As one who believes firmly in the idea that our constitutional arrangements have stood us in good stead for a long time, but without being obtuse about the need for reform, I would say that there are changes in our constitutional arrangements that, periodically, can be justified. However, my proposal is, effectively, a “stop and restart” provision. That is, if there is any merit in continuing the arrangements, if they were to survive for as long as the period allocated by the leaders of the parties and the coalition agreement, then there is always the possibility—to put it no higher than that—of referring to some of those outside this place who, as far as I am concerned, are the most important people of all, namely our electors, and not leaders of parties or parties themselves. The real question is: what do the public think about all this? Of course, they have not been asked; indeed, there is not the slightest intention that they should be asked.

What I am suggesting is that the very concept of a fixed-term Parliaments Bill is offensive to the hallowed principle—that simple constitutional proposition—that no Parliament can bind its successors. I have therefore decided—I am glad to be joined by a number of other hon. Members in this notion—that we should have what we describe in the title of new clause 5, namely the “Expiry and revival of section 2”. I happen to hope that such a revival does not take place, and I shall explain why. “Expiry”, certainly; however, as I was very sensibly advised, because of the scope of the Bill and its background, rather than proposing what I would otherwise have put forward, namely a sunset clause—or, as I think it would be better described, a “cast into the darkness of hell” clause—I have proposed that clause 2 be required to expire when the Parliament summoned to meet in May 2010, on that fixed and prescriptive date, dissolves. You might have an interest in this, Mr Speaker, because, if anything were to happen, there might even be the need for the re-election of a Speaker. In such rare circumstances, you might take a particular interest in this provision. I am suggesting that clause 2 should expire in those circumstances.

It is important to bear in mind the provisions in clause 2. We have moved on from the Committee stage to Report, and I remind the House that I tabled amendments to clause 2 in Committee because I took the gravest exception to certain elements in it. I am therefore anxious that it should expire, because I do not believe that it is a constitutionally satisfactory provision. Clause 2(1) states:

“An early parliamentary general election is to take place if the Speaker of the House of Commons issues a certificate—

(a) certifying that the House has passed a motion that there should be an early parliamentary general election,

(b) certifying whether or not the motion was passed on a division”—

I do not think that there would be much difficulty in demonstrating that. The clause continues:

(c) if it is certified that the motion was passed on a division, certifying that the number of members who voted in favour of the motion was a number equal to or greater than two thirds of the number of seats in the House (including vacant seats).”

I have no intention of going back to the discussions that we had on the clause. I tabled amendments to it and argued my case fairly, I thought, but the Whips got in the way—I do not know the reason—and the result was that I lost my Division. If I may say so without presumption, I do not believe that I lost the argument, but hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly Back Benchers, are prone to believe our own arguments.

[Thomas Docherty]

On a point of clarification, I think it is fair to say that Opposition Members do not believe that the Deputy Prime Minister has won a single argument in the House during our deliberations on the Bill.

[Mr Cash]

That does not surprise me very much.

One thing that I objected to in clause 2 was the reference to “the number of seats”. We are elected as Members of Parliament, and I am not sure that “seats” are recognised in our constitutional arrangements. Seats do not speak, and vacant seats speak even less. I find the whole proposal utterly incomprehensible. As we well know, the present arrangement—not only in this legislature but in that of the United States and, I would say, all respectable legislatures—is that decisions are taken by a majority of one. So what is this new-fangled idea about a two-thirds majority? It is being introduced for one purpose only: to keep the provisions in the Bill going in perpetuity. That is why I take such exception to the use of the plural in the title “Fixed-term Parliaments Bill”.

This provision also involves an invasion of the principle that one Parliament cannot bind its successor. That is what I really object to, as that principle is central to our democratic process. The people who come in to any given Parliament are not the same as the previous people, and they are certainly not seats or vacant seats. I hope that other Members will agree that this is a very important constitutional question, on which I place a great deal of emphasis, in relation to the new clause that we are discussing.

[Mr Jenkin]

I want to ask my hon. Friend a genuine question. Supposing there were a new Parliament and section 2 of the Act were not renewed, would we not be left with a Fixed-term Parliaments Act that made no provision for an early general election? Is that what my hon. Friend wants?

[Mr Cash]

I do not deny for a minute that that is one of the consequences, but if we were to carry this new clause, it would effectively be the end of the Bill. As I look around the House and see the huge number of people attending this debate, I do not believe that there is the slightest chance of my winning the Division—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Yes, he might!

[Mr Cash]

Oh, I see. I am extremely grateful to hear what the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), that fierce defender of British liberty—when it suits him—has to say. In the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) has said, it would not cause me any concern if my new clause were passed simply because it would require a rethink, when there would be a completely new situation. Does my hon. Friend want to intervene again on that? No.

[Austin Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman should not lack confidence about his ability to rally this House behind an important measure. Let me ask, since no Parliament can bind its successor, are not both the Bill and his new clause otiose because a new Parliament will simply wipe the plate, and if it wants to dissolve early, it will do so?

[Mr Cash]

That is a noble aspiration, but I am not at all convinced that that is how it is intended to operate in practice, mainly because there are other people involved who are called Whips. Unless provision has been made for expiry, there will be a natural locomotion towards a future coalition, which I strongly resent, and towards fixed-term Parliaments, in the plural, and we will be in “a new kind of politics”. I see in their places at least one or two of my hon. Friends who, from what we read, would strongly advocate such a proposal. They have some constitutional ideas so perhaps they will elaborate on them during the debate. I rather doubt it, but we shall see.

New clause 5 is designed so that section 2 of the eventual Act will expire. It also provides for the circumstances that might obtain in the first month after Parliament has returned after a general election, when it might have a totally different complexion and composition. We have no idea who will be sitting on the Government Benches at that time. In that first month with Members reconvened for the first time—leaving aside the constitutional doctrine about successive Parliaments—would it be right for those Members to be saddled with something with which they did not agree? It is a simple as that. That provides another reason, quite apart from the constitutionality of the issue, for the new clause.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will my hon. Friend’s new clause ensure that after the next election, the Prime Minister, instead of going through the fiction of having a vote of no confidence in himself, could simply ask for a Dissolution by a vote of the House? If the new clause were accepted, would it not provide a much more straightforward way of getting an early Dissolution?

[Mr Cash]

That is a perceptive way of putting it; I congratulate my hon. Friend on his perspicacity.

I have great reservations about our movement towards what is seen as a new kind of political understanding. One of the great objections relates to the ease with which it is possible to break manifesto promises, enter into coalitions and then break them as well. Subsequently, a Parliament might emerge that embodied all the thinking of those broken promises in the form of a new politics. That next Parliament is then intended to carry on as if nothing had happened. I think that that is a very unsatisfactory way of governing, and a very undemocratic way of conducting our affairs.

16:30

New clause 5 provides that

“In the course of the first month of the day of first meeting of any Parliament after the expiry”

of the provision that governs the issue of early parliamentary elections,

“the Minister”

—who, for practical purposes, will be the Prime Minister—

“may by order bring the section back into force for the remainder of that Parliament.”

I was advised that, within the scope of the Bill, it would not be possible for me to provide for a sunset clause, because the new clause would then be seen as a wrecking amendment and you, Mr. Speaker, would not select it. In fact it would have been a wrecking new clause, but, although I have heard the expression “wrecking amendment”, I have never heard of a wrecking new clause. Let us not worry about that, however.

We now come to the mechanics of the way in which my new clause would operate. Were such an order made, it would have to be made by statutory instrument, and there would be a requirement, or obligation, in law. The order

“shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House”.

That is the key issue. The House of Commons, as reconvened after the expiry of that Parliament and the election of a new one, would have to approve the revival of section 2, which would at least give Members an opportunity to debate the procedure and decide whether that was the way they wished to proceed. If no order were made, an early parliamentary election could take place only if the House had passed a motion allowing such an election, which puts the shoe on the other foot. The reconvened House of Commons would almost certainly be of a completely different composition, and, indeed, may have been elected on the basis of completely different principles, especially if the horrendous alternative vote provisions ever come into force.

This, and indeed all that we discuss in relation to the current spate of constitutional measures, represents a silent constitutional revolution. The Minister may well say, “You describe it as a silent revolution, but you talk about the issue a good deal, and so do many of your colleagues.” Given that the best way to keep a secret is to make a speech in the House of Commons, I can be reasonably confident that no one will have heard the arguments. However, I think it important to put on record, with no diffidence whatsoever because I am a realist when it comes to these matters, that, whether or not we happen to win the vote, following the comments of the hon. Member for Rhondda I feel a little more confident that the Opposition will support the new clause. I may discover in a moment whether that is the case. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman nodding: that is a starter for one.

The essence of the argument is that there is no rational basis on which the legislation should be regarded as relating to any future Parliament. We should make our decision in our Parliament, along with decisions on a range of questions relating to the breaches of the coalition agreement, the broken manifesto promises, and whether we are satisfied with the progress being made over the next few years.

There are certain things, although some people may think not many, which I believe the coalition has delivered well. It is rather like the curate’s egg. That is because, outweighing that, there are many other things that I regard the coalition as having delivered less well. That is merely the opinion of one humble Back Bencher, but that fact does not prevent me from advancing my arguments as and when I feel it necessary to do so. Some will have noticed that I have not been slow in coming forward with my concerns when I think it is appropriate.

The Bill will have to go to the House of Lords, and I was therefore extremely interested in a paper by the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which was published on 16 December. It may or may not have been noticed by Members, but the majority of the Committee believed that the appropriate length of a fixed parliamentary term should be not five years, but four years. That is very interesting, because given the shenanigans that we have been witnessing in the other House, which seem to me—

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

It is called proper scrutiny.

[Mr Cash]

The hon. Gentleman corrects me by saying that it is proper scrutiny.

The Committee stated:

“Whilst acknowledging the case made by the Deputy Prime Minister for a five year term”—

it is so nice when the authors of such reports use expressions like “whilst acknowledging the case” and “with respect to”—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) knows what is in my mind. The Committee continued:

“nonetheless the majority of the Committee consider that a four year term should be adopted for any fixed-term Parliamentary arrangement at Westminster. In the view of the majority, the shift from a five year maximum to a five year norm would be inconsistent with the Government’s stated aim of making the legislature more accountable, inconsistent with existing constitutional practice and inconsistent with the practice of the devolved institutions and the clear majority of international legislatures.”

That is quite a condemnation.

[Mr MacNeil]

Just for clarification, is the hon. Gentleman referring to the recommended length of a parliamentary term as proposed by an upper Chamber where the length of a parliamentary term is life?

[Mr Cash]

I can only repeat what that Committee has said: it states that the appropriate length of a fixed parliamentary term should be no more than four years. The position is, therefore, that that powerful Committee has given that advice to the House of Lords, which has yet to be given the opportunity to vote on these proposals. I think we are moving into territory where there will be proper scrutiny, as it has been described—although the word “filibuster” nearly slipped out—as has proved to be the case in respect of provisions in the alternative vote Bill currently before the House of Lords. There may yet be the possibility of similar activity with regard to how long the fixed parliamentary term should be.

For all those reasons, I believe that the provisions I have felt concerned to raise through tabling new clause 5 are merited. They are consistent with proper constitutional practice and good sense. The attempt to, let us say, fix the next fixed-term Parliament ought to be prevented at all costs.

[Chris Bryant]

I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) on his amendment and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) on his amendment, which I shall address in a few moments. I should, of course, have called them “new clauses”; Mr Speaker corrected the hon. Member for Stone on that earlier. However, I think that the hon. Member for North East Somerset rather misled the House. He did not do so in any dishonourable way, but he suggested that he was not here in 1911. I do not believe that any Member of this House believes that he was not here then or, for that matter, in 1832 and 1641. If it was not exactly him, on each of those occasions it was certainly his predecessor who made almost identical speeches. So I congratulate him on his consistency, which has lasted not only for the length of a Lib Dem manifesto, but through the centuries, and I am sure he will be here for many generations to come.

[Mr Jenkin]

The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that someone just like my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset was doubtless here in 1911, just as there was probably someone just like the hon. Gentleman and someone just like me. This House represents a continuity in this great kingdom of ours. He adverts to it with regard to only one Member, but it applies to all of us.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure that that is right because, for example, there were no women in this House or in the other House for many centuries. So changes have taken place, and change is just as important as continuity—that was going to be my argument.

The hon. Member for North East Somerset praised the House of Lords and the job of work it is doing at the moment down the other end of the building, where I hope his father will be stoutly defending not the Government but the cause of freedom and democracy—I am sure he will be. I wish to sound a slight note of caution to the hon. Gentleman. I have long supported an elected second Chamber, but over the past few years the Second Chamber has become far more partisan, because a higher proportion of its Members now take a party Whip. That applies in all parts of that House. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that Labour Members do, but what I said is true of all political parties in the House of Lords. I hope that there will be an elected second Chamber, and if there is the relationship between the Chambers will have to be written down in statute. Otherwise, either there will be permanent gridlock or, even more dangerously, we will face the problem of the Government having absolutely no check on them because they will enjoy a majority in this House and down the other end of the building. I can think of no other system in the world containing no such check. I say to the hon. Member for North East Somerset that although one praises the House of Lords, where Labour and Cross-Bench peers are doing a good job of scrutiny, some dangers are coming down the road.

The hon. Member for North East Somerset also relied on the Salisbury convention, whereby the Lords would not stand in the way of something adumbrated in a general election manifesto on which a Government were elected. In the previous Parliament the Liberal Democrats said that they believed that the Salisbury convention no longer held. I suspect that a convention written in a gentlemen’s club and redrafted several times during the 20th century probably will not stand the test of time and we will need something rather more secure for our constitutional settlement.

As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Bill extends Parliament’s life beyond the five-year period that, thus far, has been allowed; clause 1 allows the Prime Minister to extend or shorten the five-year fixed term by two months, although that is reliant on motions in this House and in the second Chamber. That is one of the many reasons we have argued that the Bill will lead to fewer general elections. That is so particularly because the Bill provides for a five-year term, rather than a four-year term, as the hon. Member for Stone said, but also because of the special provision allowing for the extra extension of two months. We believe that that is a problem and that the voters of this country probably want us not to have the longest fixed-term Parliaments in the world. If we are to have fixed-term Parliaments, voters would probably prefer us to adopt the policy of the Liberal Democrats before the general election and the policy that Labour has pursued ever since the Plant commission, when we were mired deep in opposition many years ago, which is for four-year fixed-term Parliaments. Unfortunately, that is not available to us in the Bill.

16:45

I am afraid that I disagree with the means used by the hon. Member for North East Somerset to answer the problem. Section 2(1) of the Parliament Act 1911 states:

“If any Public Bill (other than a Money Bill or a Bill containing any provision to extend the maximum duration of Parliament beyond five years) is passed by the House of Commons”

and it goes on to delineate the provisions, as amended by the later Parliament Act, that allow the Speaker to move straight to Royal Assent, often at Prorogation—we will come on to Prorogation later—without having to pass through the House of Lords, if the House of Lords has refused to co-operate. There is therefore already sufficient power to ensure that Parliament cannot be extended, which is the key point. One thing that successive generations have tried to reinforce is the need for frequent elections. The Triennial Acts and the various different versions that that legislation has gone through, from three years to seven years, the campaigns by the Chartists for annual elections and the return to a proposal for five years, have all been centred on the belief that there should be sufficient and regular elections for the Government to enjoy a mandate and for the people to have their voice.

I can see that the hon. Member for Stone is itching to intervene, so I shall let him do so.

[Mr Cash]

I have been increasingly impressed over the months by the manner in which the hon. Gentleman has tackled these constitutional questions. He is putting the House in a far better position by the manner in which he explains many of his points. Having got over that bit of flattery, I point out that it might have been a good idea if, at this point in his speech—perhaps he is coming on to it—he had referred to the comments of the Clerk of the Parliaments. The Bill will go to the House of Lords, as I have pointed out, and we do not quite know what their lordships will make of it. Not only did the Constitution Committee come to a certain conclusion on the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has raised, but so did the Clerk of the Parliaments. He said:

“It is...clear that the [Fixed-term Parliaments] Bill does contain provision to extend the maximum duration of a Parliament beyond five years, and that it cannot, therefore, be passed under the Parliament Acts procedure unless, before it leaves the Commons, the [relevant] provisions...are amended.”

Professors Bradley and Oliver agreed. That is an important point. Forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, for making rather a long intervention, but I wanted to get it on the record that this is not just a minor matter but something on which the House of Lords appears largely to have made up its mind.

[Chris Bryant]

I am always a bit reluctant to presume what the House of Lords’ final view might be, not least because three new Members of the House of Lords are being introduced every day at the moment—it is something of a moving feast down the far end of the corridor. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the Clerk of the Parliaments, and incidentally I want to pass on congratulations to Mr Beamish, who has just been appointed the new Clerk of the Parliaments. It is also true that the Clerk of this House has made it clear that there are significant concerns about clause 2, which I shall come on to when I discuss the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Stone. I am also always very grateful for any oleaginous support I can get.

The point I hope to make about new clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for North East Somerset, is that I think that there is already adequate provision in the Parliament Act to ensure that Parliament cannot be extended. His new clause would apply to the whole of clause 1, so we would not be able to amend any of the elements of it, even if they had been adumbrated in a manifesto commitment and a single party won the next general election with a majority and legislated in that way. We would not be able to use the Parliament Act even to shorten the length of a Parliament.

If we win the next general election, notwithstanding the fact that we will have won, in a sense, the right for a five-year fixed-term Parliament—I hope we will— want to reduce the number of years from five years to four. As the hon. Member for North East Somerset has shown, historical consistency across the years is a good political attribute rather than a failing.

[Thomas Docherty]

Does my hon. Friend agree with my assessment of the Parliament Act that the purpose of stipulating that parliamentary terms cannot be lengthened was to ensure a democratic check against the powers of the Prime Minister? Would not the hon. Member for North East Somerset’s new clause, regrettably, act as a check against democracy by stopping the right of the democratic House to shorten the length of a term? That is not the spirit in which the Parliament Act was intended.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, although as the hon. Member for North East Somerset said at the very beginning of his speech, all this will become rather unnecessary once we have legislated for an elected, whether fully or substantially, second Chamber. At that point, elements of the Parliament Act, or even the whole Act, will almost certainly have to be reshaped.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I absolutely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point that a Government elected on a manifesto for four years would not want to be obstructed by the House of Lords, and I doubt whether the Lords would obstruct them in those circumstances. Does he have any sympathy with the view that constitutional issues ought to have greater protection than ordinary Bills, particularly as judges have decided that there is a category of constitutional Acts? Should we decide that rather than the judiciary?

[Chris Bryant]

My general approach is that we should always seek to take decisions ourselves, rather than leave them to judges to take for us, because we are elected. However, the history of English common law and the way in which it has developed is such that judges have, by the precedents they have set, elaborated on that law. We have sometimes then decided to incorporate those interpretations into statute law, so there has been a constant relationship between the two. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) is muttering about Scottish law, but I am being very careful because I know much less about Scottish law than I do about English law, which also applies in Wales, so I am going to the edge of my knowledge and not a step further.

The hon. Member for North East Somerset is right that we will need, at some point, to put into statute law the relationship between this Chamber and an elected second Chamber, as we will want to establish that more firmly. Perhaps, as has happened in every other constitution that has been written in the world, special provision will be made for changing the constitution itself. In Germany, there has to be a vote of a certain majority in both Houses both before and after a general election. That was enforced by us in the writing of the German constitution after the second world war. In Spain, changes have been made to the constitution since the death of Franco, but the Spanish, too, can proceed only if there is a significant majority within the Cortes and the Senate. In short, my answer to the hon. Gentleman is yes.

In essence, my argument regarding new clause 3 is that it is not necessary and that it could be problematic for a new Government, because they might not be able to get their way even on a manifesto commitment that had been clearly laid down. The real danger concerns the extension of parliamentary terms—something that has always worried people in relation to the freedoms and rights of the British people, or rather the people of the United Kingdom. That is already protected in the Parliament Act, which will stand until we revise all these measures. Parliament has been extended in the past. That happened during the second world war when extensions were agreed on an annual basis. I am not sure whether that was voted on every year, but the hon. Member for North East Somerset might know.

Let me move to the new clause of the hon. Member for Stone. I note that the hon. Member for North East Somerset said that we have a choice between Scylla and Charybdis—he being Scylla and the hon. Member for Stone being Charybdis. My uncertain memory of Homer is that Odysseus chose to surrender a few sailors to Scylla rather than a whole ship to the whirlpool that was Charybdis, but I am in favour of Charybdis this afternoon.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We are now going to the end of my knowledge, and I think it would be very useful if we returned to new clause 5.

[Chris Bryant]

Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, although I am not sure that we really have got to the edge of your knowledge; I think your knowledge is boundless, and consequently I agree with you. [Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, is talking about the pillars of Hercules, which is a rather fine pub I have sometimes frequented in—well, north London somewhere.

The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Stone seems quite sensible, because we believe that section 2 has a series of elements that, as the Clerk of the House has pointed out, are problematic. We think that because the provision has been put into statute rather than included in the Standing Orders of the House, there is a real danger that elements could be questioned in the courts, and one would then have a dramatic constitutional crisis. Consequently, we understand that, as the hon. Gentleman said, those elements are there entirely to bind together the coalition. We understand why the coalition would want to maintain that element, but we certainly do not believe that a future Government should be bound by it.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that no Parliament is bound by its predecessor and no Parliament can bind its successor. However, there is one sense in which it can delay its successor, because it makes it have to re-legislate if it wants to take away a part of statute law. It seems to me that since it is clear that this piece of constitutional—

[Mr Cash]

Flummery.

[Chris Bryant]

I was thinking of jiggery-pokery. Section 2 is being proceeded with not on the basis of consensus across the House, but on the basis solely of an agreement between the two coalition partners, so it would seem to us to make sense to make an allowance in the Bill that the section would die at the next general election. I note that the hon. Gentleman has crafted his new clause carefully so that it does not say 2015; it simply says that section 2 expires when the Parliament that was elected in 2010 comes to its end. At that point, whatever new Government had been elected could choose whether to continue with the provisions or to let them lapse. If it were a Labour Government, I am pretty confident that we would want to ensure that the provisions lapsed. However, what other parties may want to do is for others to determine.

The key point is that we would not want to have to introduce primary legislation to repeal this element of the Bill. For those reasons I am keen to support the hon. Member for Stone. I do not think his new clause quite throws the whole of the ship into the whirlpool, but I think that the throwing of a few sailors into the mouths of the demon in North East Somerset would be inappropriate, and consequently we shall support new clause 5 but not new clause 3. I very much hope that we shall be able to divide the House on this matter.

[Mr Jenkin]

As one of the few Members of the House who has actually sailed through the straits of Messina in a sailing boat and witnessed the whirlpool, and the rock from which the many heads of Scylla seized the sailors—

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

And survived.

[Mr Jenkin]

I survived, but I have to say that it is a very disappointing whirlpool, and that is no reflection on either my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) or my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg)—whichever was representing the whirlpool or the many-headed monster. However, if this is an opportunity to put some instability in the Bill, I will certainly support new clause 5 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. I have my name on it in any case.

I would echo the sentiment that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) expressed in an interesting speech in response to new clause 3. The question of constitutional Bills is an interesting innovation introduced by Lord Justice Laws, but I would tell my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset that Lord Justice Laws was merely including in his judgments something that had been widely understood by constitutional theorists for some time, although it had never been legally expressed in such terms. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiment and, indeed, with that of the hon. Member for Rhondda that Parliament should determine which of these laws is constitutional and overrides subsequent Acts of Parliament. Clearly, the European Communities Act 1972 was expressly intended to do that, as has been recognised by the courts, and the 1689 Bill of Rights does that, but Lord Phillips concluded in a recent case that the doctrine of implied repeal applies to the 1689 Act.

17:00

For that reason, as was said in Committee by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), who has just left his place, this is an extremely important matter to which the House should return at a future date. I am not sure that I want the Bill to become one of those constitutional Acts, although I fully accept that the House of Lords has a role to play in preventing a tyranny of the majority—incidentally, a role that it cannot play if it becomes an elected House.

[Mr Cash]

We are, in fact, moving into very difficult and choppy waters. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), I do not believe in the so-called constitutional statutes at all. They are an invention in the first instance by Lord Justice Laws. They have a certain spurious credibility, but it does not stack up. My concern is that we will need to use a range of “notwithstanding” arrangements in relation not only to the European Union but to the so-called constitutional enactments or Bills when we want to legislate in the House. We will also need to require the judiciary to give effect to the latest Westminster enactment in that field of endeavour and to state expressly what is intended to bypass this attempt to establish a completely new regime of codified legislation. That will simply become very difficult.

[Mr Jenkin]

That was the purpose of my referring to Lord Phillips’s recent obiter dicta, in which he implied that later Acts of Parliament can effectively repeal the parts of the 1689 Act that protect Parliament’s privileges. I do not think that that is satisfactory, and Parliament needs to think clearly about how we remain in democratic control of this country’s constitutional settlement.

Using legislative techniques, such as those suggested by my hon. Friend, is the direction in which we ought to move. Some people will say that means moving towards a written constitution, but that is to misunderstand our constitution. It is partly written and partly not written. The point is to determine who is in charge. Parliament should be in charge, with the necessary checks and balances between the two Houses. So I very much welcome the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset has initiated on this topic. This debate will run and run, even though we might not be able to agree or divide on his new clause.

I put my name to new clause 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, partly because it provides an opportunity to remind ourselves of how bad the Bill is. I am afraid that I am appalled that it was introduced in this way. I cannot recall any Government ever introducing a Bill to manipulate the constitution for their own purposes in such a nakedly self-interested way. Clause 2 is simply a fig leaf to ameliorate the problems that arise from fixed-term Parliaments.

Let us remind ourselves of the provisions of clause 2. The two-thirds provision is obviously open to manipulation—assuming that the mechanism does not drag us into disputes with the courts—because if the Government of the day tabled a motion of no confidence in themselves, it would hardly be likely that the Opposition would oppose it, so a general election would still be available at the initiative of the Executive. In a coalition arrangement, the smaller partner might decide not to take part in such a process, meaning that the motion would be opposed and, by arrangement with the Opposition, perhaps passed by only a simple majority. Under the Bill, we are therefore creating arrangements by which a junior coalition partner may switch horses halfway through a Parliament.

I believe that the Liberal Democrats wanted a fixed-term Parliament so that they could swap coalition partners halfway through the Parliament. Lo and behold, we now read in the papers that the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Prime Minister seem to be striking up a new friendship—perhaps that heralds the switch. Of course, I am talking hypothetically—the subject is theoretical—but, constitutionally, the possibility exists. It is extraordinary that we are contemplating putting in place arrangements that could bring about a change of Government, Prime Minister and Administration without a general election, but that is what the Bill provides for. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) seems to be looking at me quizzically.

[Chris Bryant]

I am looking at the hon. Gentleman quizzically, because, under the existing arrangements, there have been many changes of Prime Minister and Administration without a general election. Although I recognise that the hon. Gentleman stood at the general election on a manifesto that said that a change of Prime Minister should be followed by a general election within six months, I note that he has not tabled an amendment that would have that effect.

[Mr Jenkin]

Privately, I can confide to the House that I always thought that that proposition was a bit daft—it seemed like ingratiation. Whenever the ruling party changes its leader, meaning that there is a change of Prime Minister, the Opposition always cough and splutter loudly, and express the view that, in all justice, there should be a general election. The newspapers usually join in the fun, because they like general elections, too, but, in reality, we all know that there is absolutely no need for an election. There is usually a degree of continuity when there is a change of party leader because the same party is in charge and it is unlikely that a lot of the predecessor’s policies would be overthrown. One or two things usually change, but generally there is continuity.

We are considering, however, the possibility of a change of Administration involving a different party. We know that the Labour party attempted to form some kind of rainbow coalition with the Liberal Democrats after the last election—[Interruption.] That was what we were told, anyway. Later in this Parliament—perhaps if the balance of power has shifted a bit towards the Opposition following by-elections—the Liberal Democrats could abandon the Conservatives in a vote of no confidence. In such circumstances, the Conservatives might be clever enough to join in that vote of no confidence to ensure that there would be a general election, but it would be far more likely that the vote would be followed by a reordering of the Executive, which might well involve the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats.

Let us suppose that the maths in the House were slightly different and the two main parties were more evenly balanced. The Liberal Democrats then could genuinely choose which partner they wanted. Through the Bill, we are creating constitutional circumstances under which the third party could change the Government at will without a general election.

[Chris Bryant]

I am slightly flummoxed by the hon. Gentleman’s charming naivety about what might have happened after the general election. The Bill does many things that are inappropriate, but I do not think it does that, and the truth of the matter is that there have been many changes of Administration over the centuries under the existing arrangements, not least in the first and second world wars. Having a fixed-term Parliament does not in itself mean what the hon. Gentleman has described will happen. It is perfectly possible that we will win a significant number of by-elections over the coming years, or that some Liberal Democrats or others may change their party affiliation, and—[Interruption.] It is possible; I said only that. The Minister should do the nice bit again. In such circumstances, the mathematics would change.

[Mr Jenkin]

Inevitably, these debates always depend on speculation about what might happen, which is the one rather unsatisfactory thing about debating the future of the constitution. I have always been regarded as a bit of a pessimist about the European Union, but I did point out to a colleague that, so far, I have been proved right, and if these arrangements remain the same indefinitely, sooner or later I will be proved right again.

The point is that the Bill—except for this new measure in clause 2—is intended to remove the safety valve that allows for an early general election. However, that clause is the worst part of the Bill. As we were told by the Clerk of the House in his memorandum, before the Bill was considered in Committee:

“The Bill brings the internal proceedings of the House into the ambit of the Courts, albeit indirectly by the route of Speaker’s certificates.”

The procedures of the House, votes of confidence, Speaker’s certificates and two-thirds majorities all become potentially justiciable, notwithstanding the Bill of Rights. For that reason, I fully support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone.

A vain attempt to remove the courts from considering those matters is made in clause 2(3), which states:

“A certificate under this section is conclusive for all purposes.”

Unfortunately, clause 2(3) is itself justiciable by the courts, because we are putting this into statute. That part of the Bill, which attempts to ameliorate the problems that arise from having fixed-term Parliaments, creates the biggest constitutional headaches for Parliament itself by inviting the courts to intervene in those matters.

[Mr Cash]

On that very question, does my hon. Friend recall that the 1911 Act goes further? It does not end by saying that the certificate

“shall be conclusive for all purposes”,

but adds

“and shall not be questioned in any court of law.”

I would simply add to that the word “whatsoever” because of the very problem that he has mentioned. The Supreme Court, or indeed any other court, may seek to take control over this.

[Mr Jenkin]

I put it to my hon. Friend that that wording in 1911 may well have been sufficient because it would not have entered the heads of the judges in those days to breach the Bill of Rights, but we know that members of the now Supreme Court—note the word “Supreme”—sincerely believe that Parliament is within their purview. We have had the debate about whether the sovereignty of Parliament is a common-law principle—that is, part of judge-made law, rather than an historical fact that exists in its own right as a result of the disputes between the Crown and Parliament in the 17th century.

I believe that it would be helpful if I spoke briefly on this matter, and I take this opportunity to commend my hon. Friend on his new clause. Future Parliaments should have the opportunity to throw out the proposals in clause 2. That would not wreck the Bill, but it would invite questions about what it means and how practical it is. It would certainly impel a future Parliament to consider at the earliest opportunity whether the Fixed-term Parliaments Act should remain on the statute book—I very much hope that it will not—or to put in place much better arrangements to provide for early general elections under a fixed-term Parliament system. The Bill as drafted is nonsense and a potential disaster. If we do not fix it in this place, I hope that those in another place will do so.

17:15

[Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), but I shall talk about the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) invoked Homer. In the case of my hon. Friend’s new clause, I would invoke Cicero:

“Those who know nothing of the time before they were born shall forever remain children.”

That is what I feel is happening to this Chamber. We forget our past, our history and the continuity of our constitution. There was an affirmation there that was important and required addressing.

I understand the hon. Member for Rhondda being concerned about the increased politicisation of the House of Lords, and the “gridlock”, or however he described it. I grew up in an age when the Standing Orders of the House of Lords—this was before my time in the House of Commons—were not so dissimilar from the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. They dealt with, among other things, delay. Very important it is, too. If there is such a thing as gridlock, there comes a point, as we sometimes see in the United States, when the people whom we are elected to represent grow increasingly angered that the business of government comes to a halt because horns are locked. That becomes the grounds for compromise and discussion as the route forward.

As I understand it, in the Lords a proposition has been offered to the Government to separate the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill into two parts, with one part going forward. So there were grounds for compromise. At the moment that is not acceptable to the Government and there is therefore gridlock, but there will come a time when that is unacceptable to a wider public, who want Parliament and the Government to move on.

[Chris Bryant]

I hoped that my words supported the very argument that the hon. Gentleman is making. I would, in addition, invoke Cato the Younger, who by speaking until dusk, made sure that Caesar did not always get his way. [Interruption.] The Deputy Leader of the House says that that was a filibuster. Cato was right to use every tactic that he had, but the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) is right, too. The Standing Orders of the House of Lords were the same as they were in this place. The fact that now the Government always have precedence over the order and the timing of debates is one of the reasons why there is no check on the Executive at all.

[Mr Shepherd]

I am always encouraged when a political opponent, in the sense of someone from the other side of the House, adopts arguments that I advanced against him when he was sitting on the Front Bench on behalf of the Labour party. It is true. Now we see the conversion of the defeated. That is why we should always be mindful that our hold on government is a temporary experience, and that one day we will be sitting on the Benches on the other side of the Chamber and hoping to be able to make the reasoned arguments that can convince a wider public out there.

The sheer disengagement of some of our arguments from those by whom we are elected, and from why we are elected, is to me the most worrying development of Parliament in recent years. We have scorned the historic balance of where the people lie in this matter; that is why I support both new clauses. I have asked the whole way through our consideration of the Bill how it will strengthen the people’s hold over the House of Commons, which is their representative instrument for ensuring that public policy bears some relationship to the desires, hopes and aspirations of our society. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset for the informed, reasoned and reasonable way in which he presented his new clause. If it is put to a vote, I will vote for it, because I would like to show that there is some support in this House for the arguments it advances about temperance in respect of the House of Lords and its doings.

I am a democrat and truly believe in the representation of the people in this House, which is what I want to see. However, the basis of the argument that I have made the whole way through proceedings on the Bill is that we know that it is about the entrenchment of a temporary coalition, and we are trying to examine, and amend, the aspiration that things can somehow be rejigged. We have heard the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is sitting on the Front Bench, advance the startling proposition that the Queen could dismiss a Prime Minister for acting “improperly”. No constitutional documents in the past two centuries, and certainly not since 1867, have stated that that was a practical reality.

[Thomas Docherty]

In that case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain why Her Majesty was able to dismiss the Government of Australia, which is part of the Commonwealth, by using the powers that she has.

[Mr Shepherd]

The constitutional arrangements of Australia are a matter of written statute there, and I understand that the Governor-General exercised the prerogative power in the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. However, that is not what I am concerned about; I am concerned about our own constitutional processes. I think that the statement by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was misjudged, but he has never withdrawn it. He is a representative of the Government, and of the Crown itself, but as a Member of Parliament he has never withdrawn that statement.

My nervousness about the Bill is clear. I am nervous about the idea that two parties can mandate that their existence as a coalition should last for a term of five years. I have expressed that view before, and I think that it is shared by a number of Members. I have no doubt that the Lords will think that measure trivial in some ways, because it is a presumption; how can one mandate something that is formed by human beings with their own policies and parties? They can work together to a certain extent, but the coalition will last as long as the coalition lasts. I am not damning it; I am just saying that I do not think that they should have reached forward with a Bill of this nature. If they want to work in harness they will have the support of a great many Members of this House. We know that the nation is confronted with an economic crisis and difficult decisions have to be made. The people of this country are having to make difficult decisions on how to restore economic competence, balance budgets and all the rest of it.

We have spent a lot of time on the first matter, so I will now come to the real new clause, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, which I will undoubtedly vote for. His brevity today was extraordinary. [Laughter.] I do not laugh at it, for I think that the expression of great ideas is all the more effective for being expressed in a concentrated and condensed way. I appreciate that there is a drinks party at Downing street for Members from my party who want to attend, so I will bring my remarks to a close, as the great business of the Government must not be delayed by the musings of the House of Commons on such matters as constitutional reform.

I am standing up to support the limitations that are being expressed and the hesitations about the nature of the Bill. If there were one thing that I could argue for and effect, it would be that the Government themselves realise that they have a job. We salute them for that, but, when they fiddle with the constitution in ways that suit only their own purpose and stifle the natural functioning flow of politics, we lose something, and we lose the attention of our constituents. My argument is that we cannot march to a drumbeat like that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us the opportunity at least to raise our caveats, and I am grateful to the Labour party for indicating that it will support the new clause. It is important, and I commend it.

[Mr Harper]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) for his generous opening remarks and, as usual, largely excellent speech. I say “largely”, because I do not entirely agree with his characterisation of the other place, given the behaviour not, I hasten to add, of their lordships’ House, but of a small number of former Labour MPs, who are filibustering and abusing every procedure of that House to try to frustrate the will of this elected House of Commons, which passed the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill by a considerable majority. Apart from that, I very much enjoyed my hon. Friend’s speech.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Deputy Prime Minister to have abused the Members of the House of Lords in the form that he chose?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That is most certainly not a point of order for me. I am sure that there are other ways in which the hon. Gentleman can express his views, and I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister—like the Minister who is present—will be well aware of what has just been said. Please, Mr Harper, continue.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that I drew a distinction between certain Members of the other place and the other place in general, about which I have no complaint.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset explained very clearly the effect of his new clause 3, and he was concerned about changes to clause 1 being made using powers in the Parliament Act 1911. It is already the case—this is a subject on which I agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—that the Parliament Act cannot be used to push through legislation that extends the life of Parliaments. One hon. Member—I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash)—pointed out that because of the Bill’s provisions allowing the Prime Minister to vary the date of an election by up to two months in an emergency, we cannot use the Parliament Act to push this legislation through against the wishes of the upper House. However, the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset would, as the hon. Member for Rhondda said, also prevent this House from reducing the length of a Parliament without the agreement of the other place. It does not seem desirable to put that provision in place.

Section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911, to which my hon. Friend’s new clause refers, sets out important rules about the relationship between this House and the other place. Those rules have been in place for some time, and the Government certainly do not intend to start changing that relationship. It is already the case that we cannot lengthen a Parliament, and given what I have said, we do not want to start changing the Parliament Act as my hon. Friend’s new clause would.

[Chris Bryant]

I presume that the Minister is therefore confirming that the Bill does lengthen a Parliament.

[Mr Harper]

Yes. The Bill sets out a five-year term, and in an emergency it would be possible for the Prime Minister to vary the length, so we cannot use the Parliament Act to enact it. That is a perfectly straightforward point. It is in the Bill; it is no great secret at all.

[Chris Bryant]

You denied it in Committee.

[Mr Harper]

No. It is very clear in the Bill. I do not think that the issue arose in Committee.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) also put his finger on this issue when he correctly drew attention to it in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. If my hon. Friend presses the new clause to a vote I shall ask hon. Members to oppose it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone, in speaking to new clause 5, said that the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill was about perpetual coalition arrangements. It is not about fixed-term Governments, but about the length of Parliaments. All it does is take away the Prime Minister’s power to dissolve a Parliament and bring it to an end. It replaces that right with two provisions that establish no-confidence procedures, which we have already, and give Parliament the opportunity to vote for an early Dissolution.

17:30

My hon. Friend confirmed, in effect, that new clause 5 was a wrecking amendment. He said that he could not table the proposal exactly as he had wanted, because it would have been ruled out of order. I suppose that it is a wrecking amendment in a cunning disguise.

[Mr Cash]

I strongly resent the idea that new clause 5 is a wrecking amendment; it stands on its own merits, and I repudiate this Baldrick attempt to turn it into a cunning plot.

[Mr Jenkin]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that if there was an attempt to table a wrecking amendment, the Clerks would rapidly describe it as out of order and it would not be selected for debate?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

All I can say is that all the amendments and new clauses have been chosen in the right and proper way.

[Mr Harper]

Exactly; it is a very cunning new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone put his finger on the point that an amendment simply to take away clause 2 would have been a wrecking amendment. The power of revival is the cunning disguise in which the new clause is wrapped.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) described clause 2 as a fig leaf. I do not agree with that characterisation, but even if the House agreed with it, I am not sure that hon. Members would be as keen to remove the fig leaf as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex appeared to be. [Interruption.] No, that is what he said. He said that it was a fig leaf and that he wanted to remove it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone seemed to establish a new doctrine in his speech. He seemed to be suggesting that all Acts of Parliament should lapse at the end of a Parliament, just in case the new Parliament is of a different complexion and its Members disagree. He said that the House should not bind its successors. It is perfectly true that the House cannot bind its successors, because each successive Parliament can repeal Acts; that is the normal way. However, it is not the normal procedure for all Acts to lapse at the end of a Parliament, just in case the new Parliament disagrees with them.

The Government hope, although they cannot bind their successors, that the public and future Parliaments will find the arrangements in the Bill acceptable and will keep them in place. Future Parliaments are, of course, at liberty to change them. However, we do not think that there should be what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone described as a sunset clause to remove the powers. If clause 2 were removed as he suggested, it would effectively give back the power to the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament at will. We have argued throughout the passage of the Bill that that would be undesirable.

[Chris Bryant]

Many of us believe that the Prime Minister has that power even under the Bill, because all he has to do is table a motion of no confidence in his own Government, to which the Opposition would almost always agree, and there would be a general election. Be that as it may, I am sure that the Minister argued and voted for sunset clauses in relation to control orders, which, I understand, will expire next Monday. Is the same provision not necessary in this Bill?

[Mr Harper]

No; the Government’s intention is to change the system so that there are fixed-term Parliaments, apart from in the two possible cases set out in the Bill. We think that that is a desirable change. If the public and future politicians agree that it is desirable, it will stand the test of time. That is what we hope for and what we have argued for.

My hon. Friends the Members for Stone and for Harwich and North Essex raised concerns about the two procedures in clause 2—motions of no confidence and motions on early elections—that allow for early elections. However, the House of Lords Constitution Committee was fairly supportive of those measures.

The Committee said that it was

“sensible for the Bill to contain some form of safety valve which would allow for an early election in circumstances such as the government losing the confidence of the Commons or where a political or economic crisis has affected the country”,

and concluded that the safety valves that we had included were appropriate. The Committee also looked at the risk of the courts intervening, which my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex mentioned, and concluded:

“The risk that the courts may intervene in any early dissolution of Parliament by questioning the Speaker’s certificate is very small”,

adding:

“we do not consider the risk to be sufficient to warrant a rejection of clause 2 of the Bill.”

Based on what the House of Lords Constitution Committee has said, I, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, am confident that when this House approves the Bill, as I hope it will, and it is debated in their lordships’ House, they will give it proper scrutiny, but in the end give it a fair wind and pass it. However, if my hon. Friend presses his new clause 5 to a vote, I will urge all hon. Members to reject it and to keep clause 2 as it stands.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. If you wish to press your new clause, Mr Cash, you will have an opportunity to do so later, after we debate the next group, which starts with new clause 4.

New Clause 4

Prorogation of Parliament

‘(1) Parliament can only be prorogued in accordance with this section.

(2) If the House of Commons resolves that Parliament should be prorogued, Parliament shall be prorogued at that time, or by declaration of the Speaker.

(3) The Speaker of the House of Commons shall not make such a declaration unless the House of Commons has passed a resolution directing him to do so on or before a specified date and time.

(4) Where Parliament is prorogued under subsection (2) above, the Speaker may by declaration prorogue it to an earlier or later day.

(5) The Prorogation Act 1867 is repealed.’.—(Chris Bryant.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 14, page 2, line 5, clause 2, at end insert—

‘(aa) certifying whether or not the motion specified a polling day for such an election, and if so, the day specified in that motion,’.

Amendment 15, page 2, line 24, after ‘be’, insert—

‘(a) the day specified in a motion as certified under subsection (1)(aa) above, or, if no date is specified, (b)’.

Amendment 8, page 2, line 29, clause 3, leave out ‘17th’ and insert ‘25th’.

Amendment 9, page 2, line 39, at end insert

‘within 15 working days of the polling day’.

Amendment 2, page 4, line 4, schedule, leave out ‘“or dissolve”’ and insert

‘“prorogue or dissolve Parliaments nor”’.

Amendment 3, page 4, line 6, at end insert—

‘Meeting of Parliament Act 1797 (c. 127)

2A The Meeting of Parliament Act 1797 is repealed.’.

Amendment 4, page 4, line 8, leave out

‘“or dissolved” where it occurs second’

and insert

‘“unless it should be sooner prorogued or dissolved by the Crown, anything in the Succession to the Crown Act 1707 in any way notwithstanding”.’.

[Chris Bryant]

I wish to speak to new clause 4 and some of the other amendments in the group, which stand in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Lord Chancellor and myself.

One of the arguments that the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister, the Minister and the Deputy Leader of the House have advanced in favour of the Bill is that it surrenders a hefty part of the royal prerogative that has been enjoyed by the Prime Minister, in that the Prime Minister will no longer be able to cut and run. That is, the Prime Minister will no longer be able to determine the date of the general election or be free to run the constitution—and, in particular, the electoral timetable—according to party political advantage.

Those of us who have supported fixed-term Parliaments for some time, and who made many speeches about them before the last general election, agree that that is an important step to take. We support the idea of fixed-term Parliaments. We note that there have been several occasions in the past when Prime Ministers have been tempted to call general elections because they have had poll leads, and when they have cut and run. There have been other occasions when Prime Ministers have decided not to do so, because they were fearful of the electorate. We believe that it makes far more sense for local authorities, which have to administer elections, and for the Boundary Commission and the whole paraphernalia of electoral law to have the clarity that comes from knowing, in general, except for extraordinary circumstances, when the next general election will be.

However, one element of prerogative power that the Government are not surrendering is the prerogative power of Prorogation—I shall have to be careful with my syllables in the next section of my speech. As I am sure all hon. Members know, Prorogation is a rather abstruse element of the way in which we do our business. It is an irony that it is still true that Parliament can neither sit nor choose not to sit without the say-so of the Crown. I use the term “the Crown” because in theory it is the monarch who decides, but in practice it is the monarch in consultation with the Privy Council, which means, to all intents and purposes, the Government of the day, and therefore the Prime Minister. That is laid down in a series of different elements of our constitutional settlement, but in particular, in the power of Prorogation, which lies, fairly and squarely, solely with the Crown and the Prime Minister.

It is still true that there is no requirement that a Parliament sit—except, one could argue, in so far as the provisions in the Bill of Rights determine that no money can be granted to the Crown unless it is expressly granted by Parliament, and that Parliament therefore has to meet at least once a year to agree the estimates. Similarly, one could argue that the provisions relating to not being able to have a standing army mean that Parliament has to meet every five years. A provision also exists stating that we cannot be without a Parliament for more than three years. However, I would argue—as the Social Democratic party-Liberal alliance used to argue very forcefully—that Parliament should have a permanent existence, except during those brief moments when it is dissolved.

Of course we still support the idea of having annual Sessions of Parliament, and there needs to be a means of ending each parliamentary Session. We also need a means of dissolving Parliament before a general election. However, the amendments that we have tabled today would mean that the power to decide to sit and not to sit would lie solely in the hands of this House and not in the hands of the Government. Under the current provision, Dissolution is effected by royal proclamation under the Great Seal, and the proclamation of Dissolution sometimes follows Prorogation and sometimes follows an Adjournment. Our proposal is that that proclamation and the date on which Parliament would next sit following a general election should not be decided solely by the Prime Minister, and that they should be fixed in statute, as they are in nearly every other constitution in the world.

This is especially true if we are moving towards what are being called fixed-term Parliaments but are actually fixed general election dates. It is important that the House should always know when it is next going to sit following a general election. That is why we have tabled amendment 9, which proposes that Parliament should sit

“within 15 working days of the polling day”.

That would apply whether it is an early general election or one that takes place on a fixed date, such as May 2015—or, as we would argue, May 2014. We have used the term “working days” because that term has been used throughout the Bill. There is one tiny element in the Bill in which the Government refer simply to “days” rather than “working days”, but they refused to accept our argument on that, and our amendment to change the wording was defeated. None the less, I think that it is better to be consistent throughout the Bill in the terms that are used.

The power of Prorogation is important not only at the end of a Parliament when there is a Dissolution and a general election; it is important also at the end of a Session, in that every element of parliamentary business is suspended. There are no further sittings, and all Bills that have been commenced fall, except those that have expressly been permitted to be carried over to the next Session. As I understand it, the only other exception relates to impeachment proceedings, which are able to continue from one Session to the next.

The power to prorogue is therefore a substantial one that the Government retain. I would argue that this is particularly important in relation to this Bill because the Government could use the power inappropriately, if it were to remain solely in their hands, if there had been a vote of no confidence in them. Let us say that the Government had opposed the vote of no confidence but lost it. There is a provision in the Bill that, in the following fortnight, a new Government would have to pass a motion of confidence. However, a motion of confidence can be agreed in the House only if Parliament is sitting. If the Government had decided to prorogue Parliament, there would be no opportunity for a new one to be formed. I can perfectly easily see a set of circumstances in which a Government, having lost a vote of confidence, would want to make sure that no other Government can be formed and therefore prorogue Parliament expressly to prevent an alternative Government, thereby triggering a general election.

17:45

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office who is no longer in his place, was told off earlier by one of his parliamentary colleagues for advancing the argument in a previous debate that if the Prime Minister were to act unconstitutionally, the monarch would sack that Prime Minister. I have talked this over with quite a few constitutional experts, every single one of whom said that that is complete and utter nonsense—including Vernon Bogdanor who told me that he was particularly depressed by the way in which the Minister had advanced that argument because he was one of his own students who had previously seemed to be quite intelligent, but seemed to have abandoned his sense on this point.

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is articulating a coherent case. Does he agree that if we have a new electoral system, the odds of having a hung Parliament will increase greatly and that if this Parliament did not have an opportunity to re-form a Government, that would be expressly against the wishes of the people, who had clearly voted for a hung Parliament?

[Chris Bryant]

I detect a bit of a difference of view between my hon. Friend and myself here. I hate to say this, but I am rather more with the Deputy Leader of the House on this issue. My hon. Friend is right in saying that if a proportional system were introduced, a succession of hung Parliaments would be more likely. Consensus would rule the day and coalition Governments would be formed on a fairly regular basis. That is not absolutely certain, as it has not happened in some countries that have proportional representation. However, the alternative vote, which I shall be voting for—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) shouts out, “Shame”, but it expressly points out in “Erskine May” that shouting “Shame” is unparliamentary. I would not want to excoriate him on that basis. I am not quite sure on which page it says that, but I am sure he will find it, if he looks for it. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. It is my job to cite that authority, not the job of the hon. Member.

[Chris Bryant]

I am just trying to help you out, Mr Deputy Speaker. You did say earlier that you were at the edge of your knowledge and this might not be a page you have reached in your reading of “Erskine May”.

My point was that the alternative vote system does not necessarily lead to more hung Parliaments. It depends entirely on the political climate of the day. The fact that first past the post has on this occasion delivered us a hung Parliament and that we have had coalition Governments many times over the last 140 years provides evidence that it is not first past the post that delivers a particular version of government, but how people vote in the particular circumstances.

[Chris Bryant]

I was referring to the use of Prorogation at the end of a parliamentary Session. I believe that that should be in the hands of this House, not in the hands of the Government. Sorry, in fact I was referring to the case where a Government might choose to use Prorogation expressly to prevent an alternative Government from being formed. The Deputy Leader of the House might reassert what the Parliamentary Secretary said earlier—that the monarch would simply sack the Prime Minister in such circumstances—but I do not believe that the monarch has such a power. In fact, since statute law would have expressly stated that that power was still there, I cannot see how that could possibly happen. Alternatively, the Deputy Leader of the House might say that the monarch would refuse to grant Prorogation. That would set the monarch directly against the Prime Minister, and in such a contest there would be a real constitutional crisis, which some would want to take to the courts because the provisions would by then have been placed in statute law.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

The hon. Gentleman is exploring an interesting argument, but there is currently nothing to prevent a Prime Minister from requesting Prorogation to avoid a vote of no confidence if he believes that the monarch will accede to his request. Given that that has never happened, why does the hon. Gentleman think that such a constitutional anomaly is more likely to arise following the passage of the Bill than under the present arrangements?

[Chris Bryant]

The Deputy Leader of the House has made a fair point. However, because we are now putting in statute significant elements of the way in which the British constitution might work in the future, rather than, of necessity, what exists at present, we are creating a labyrinth which Prime Ministers may well wish to navigate. I shall say more about that shortly, once I have given way to the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), who is talking to a Whip at the moment.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mark Reckless]

That is very kind.

I believe that there is a recent precedent in Canada, whose Parliament—if I understand the position correctly—was prorogued for two or three months by a minority Government, against the wishes of many parliamentary parties.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman has predicted almost exactly what I was about to say. The 40th Canadian Parliament, which was elected on 14 October 2008 and opened on 18 November, was prorogued by the Governor-General almost immediately, on 4 December, at the specific request of the then Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. I do not think that there is a deliberate coincidence between his surname and that of the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office.

Mr Harper expected a motion of no confidence in his Government, and a coalition agreement was established between the various parties with the support of the Bloc Québécois. As the hon. Gentleman says, that Prorogation was quite substantial, and a second Prorogation at the end of 2009 lasted for more than two months. Many complained that it too had been arranged expressly to avoid a political inconvenience. At the time, a big row was taking place about the detention of Afghans by Canadian forces.

As the hon. Gentleman suggests, there is a real danger that Prorogation could be used in a rather more assertive and political fashion. Governments in this country have tended not to use it in such a way, partly because it means losing the business on which they have embarked and having to start it all over again. That will probably continue, but given that Select Committee reports—including reports from the Standards and Privileges Committee—also fall in such circumstances, I can easily imagine that a Government might choose to prorogue a month earlier than usual, perhaps very early in a Parliament, in order to avoid a political necessity. Interestingly, the ostensible reason given by the Canadians was the prospect of the winter Olympics in Canada. They said it was imperative that the Canadian Government should be able to get on with its business, and that Parliament should not be able to meet during the Olympics.

I think it is right for the power to cease to be wholly in the hands of the Crown, and to be in the hands of the House. I also think that we should start to clarify the knitting pattern, as it were, of this part of the constitution as it currently exists. The laws governing Prorogation hang on a series of Acts of Parliament: the Prorogation Act 1867, the Meeting of Parliament Acts 1694, 1797, 1799 and 1870, and the Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Act 1943. The thrust of all those Acts is that the monarch is entirely able to prorogue Parliament, to decide when it will next meet, and to continue to prorogue with only the safeguards of the measures that I mentioned earlier in the context of the Bill of Rights.

There is a considerable lack of clarity in regard to the process in the run-up to a general election. We know when the next general election will be, at least according to the Bill, although we still hope that their lordships may enforce their will and ensure that it takes place in 2014 rather than 2015. Indeed, I hope that a significant number of Conservatives will support the 2014 date, if only to shrug off the embrace of the Liberal Democrats. However, given that we know when the next general election is expected to be, it surely makes sense for us to rationalise the process of Prorogation.

Up to 1974, there were only two 20th-century general elections in which a Dissolution was not preceded by a Prorogation: the elections of 22 August 1922 and 31 July 1964. As I am sure Members have already spotted, both those elections took place in the summer months, during long recesses when the House stood adjourned. Adjournment, of course, follows a decision by the House, not the Government. There followed a period during which the Government decided to abandon Prorogation. There were adjournments in the summer of 1974, in 1979, in 1983 and in 1987, with no Prorogation.

By 1987, the assumption seemed to have become that the House would do without Prorogation at the end of a Parliament and before Dissolution, partly because the Royal Assent Act 1967 had allowed Royal Assent to be granted by notification rather than necessarily by Prorogation. There was, and still is, no specific need at Prorogation for Royal Assent to Acts that had not yet been referred to. In fact, in 1987 there was something of a row in the House. Mr Speaker Weatherill said that he thought it inappropriate for us to abandon Prorogation. It may be apposite to discuss that occasion this evening, given that so many Members have left the Chamber to go to a drinks party in Downing street. Incidentally, is the sun already past the yardarm? It is not yet 6 pm, and Conservatives are already drinking in Downing street. Tradition has gone by the board.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am sure that the fact that the Conservatives have had to resort to drink has nothing to do with last Thursday’s result in the Oldham by-election.

[Chris Bryant]

I do not think they are very happy. I also think that the Prime Minister may have needed to gather his troops as a result of last week’s result.

On that occasion in 1987, the Speaker and several Members, including Mr Faulds, expressed the view that one of the traditions that had developed over the years was that once a Parliament had been prorogued, Members had an opportunity to make final speeches, and the Speaker had an opportunity to bid farewell to those who would not be standing in the subsequent election. I believe that 86 were not standing again in 1987. Mr Speaker Weatherill said that he thought it was wrong for there to be no Prorogation before Dissolution, and several Members agreed. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) was the only one who believed that it would be good to get rid of Prorogations, because the whole business of Lords Commissioners doffing their caps in the House of Lords struck him as a ludicrous ceremony that should be abolished. A fair number of Members probably think that the quaintness of that moment should not simply be chucked away for the sake of it. My point is, however, that the decision on whether Prorogation should take place ought to lie in the hands of the House rather than in those of Government. I also think it is important for it to be known at that point exactly when the first sitting of the new Parliament will be.

As a result, I suspect, of Mr Speaker Weatherill’s views, Dissolution was again preceded by Prorogation in 1992, 1997, 2005 and 2010. However, in 2001 Parliament was dissolved without being prorogued, and was simply adjourned on 11 May 2001. Adjournment was, of course, a decision of the House, not the Government.

18:00

In summary, it is important that, just as the Government are surrendering the prerogative power in relation to Dissolution, they should also surrender the prerogative power in relation to Prorogation. They should do so for three reasons: first so as not to have the temptation of being able to use Prorogation to prevent business that they do not want to happen; secondly because we are putting into statute measures in respect of what happens in the case of a motion of no confidence that make express provision for a strict period of time during which a motion of confidence has to be passed and which could be passed only if the House were sitting, and therefore not prorogued; and thirdly because we need to tidy up the processes we go through at the end of a Parliament—not the end of a parliamentary Session—both by determining that we should have a Prorogation but that the decision on the date should be left to this House and not to the Government, and by ensuring that, as in amendment 9, there is a clear date for when the new Parliament will be sitting.

New clause 4 therefore puts Prorogation directly in the hands of the Commons and repeals several of the historical provisions in statute. It would clarify all these issues. It allows for the House to decide either immediately to prorogue, or to allow the Speaker to prorogue at a later time that is, however, fixed. It would also repeal the Prorogation Act 1867 and tidy up a variety of measures.

Amendment 2 amends the Crown Act 1707—that is important—and amendment 3 repeals the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797. Amendment 4 amends section 51 of the Representation of the People Act 1867 so that any reference to Dissolution or Prorogation is entirely omitted. Amendment 9 would require Parliament to meet “within 15 working days” after a general election. In the vast majority of cases in the last 61 years since the second world war, that would meet the needs of every new Parliament. These measures would bring the sitting, holding and closing of Parliament into Parliament’s hands.

We have further amendments in this group, to which I also wish to refer briefly. As all Members know, the length of time that is allowed for a general election has historically been 17 days. That is referred to in the Representation of the People Act 1983, as amended, which makes provision for the

“Last day for delivery of nomination papers/withdrawals of candidature/appointment of election agents”

to be on the sixth day after Dissolution, with polling day 11 days after that. That has made perfect sense over the years, when we have been completely uncertain as to the likely date of the general election—it could be in January, March, April or any time of the year. However, under the Bill we are now moving over to a situation in which general elections will nearly always be in May, and on the same day as local elections, Assembly elections in Wales and Northern Ireland, and elections for the Scottish Parliament. For each of those elections the timetable is a 25-day period, not a 17-day period. I think it makes sense to have the same length of time for all sets of elections that are being held on the same day.

Various considerations apply to this issue of course, including national expenditure on election campaigns, local expenditure, the amount an individual candidate can spend on promoting their own candidature, and a whole series of different measures in relation to electoral law. They all come into play the moment that that short campaign period has started. It therefore makes sense for the period to be the same for all the different candidates who are standing for election at the same time. I have spoken to the Electoral Commission, which has been campaigning for equalisation in this regard for some time. It is interesting that while the Representation of the People Act 1983 set a timetable of 17 days for a general election, every time a new body has been set up subsequently, the decision has been made to set the period at 25 days rather than 17 days.

Several years ago, the second speech I ever made in this House was on the Ofcom paving Bill, which was introducing Ofcom and getting rid of the various different bodies that then regulated broadcasting and telecoms. I said it would be great to get rid of lots of bodies and just have one because it would be coherent, more consistent and, to use a valleys” word—as in the south Wales valleys—it would be tidy. Unfortunately however, Hansard rendered that as to use a valet’s word. We do not have many valets in the valleys, but I would still assert—I hope that the Hansard reporters are noting this—that the proposal I have just mentioned would be more coherent, more consistent, and that, to use a Valleys word, it would be tidy. [Interruption.] I see that I have support for this amendment from one of the Conservative Whips; I hope I will see him in the Division Lobby later.

I very much hope that the Government will feel able to support these amendments. I understand that there may be some uncertainty in relation to the period of the general election campaign, but I hope that what will triumph in Ministers’ minds is a desire to see greater clarity and tidiness in our electoral arrangements as we move towards a fixed-term Parliament.

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

Anybody who knows me knows that my appreciation of a glass of reasonably priced white wine is second to no one’s in this House, and my appreciation of a glass of reasonably priced white wine served by the Prime Minister in No. 10 Downing street is extreme, but my love for the British constitution is greater than that.

[Chris Bryant]

Is he charging?

[Nick Boles]

The shadow Minister asks whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is charging for the drinks he is serving in No. 10 Downing street. In response, I would merely point out something that seems to have escaped the attention of Opposition Members.

[Thomas Docherty]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman seems to be claiming that the Prime Minister is using Downing street for commercial purposes. Is it appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to make such a serious allegation against his own Prime Minister?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think we all know that that is not a point of order.

[Nick Boles]

I do not want to stray from the subject of the new clauses and the amendments, but I should point out something that seems permanently to escape Opposition Members, which is that we live in a time of austerity, and our Prime Minister is doing everything he can to maximise revenue to the Exchequer and minimise expense, hence the reasonably priced wine being served and the—

[Thomas Docherty]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are straying from the subject of new clause 4. The price of drinks in Downing street has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

[Nick Boles]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was in danger of being wholly distracted from my point, which is that my love for the British constitution, such as it is, is greater even than my love for a glass of reasonably priced white wine served at No. 10 Downing street, and there is no part of the British constitution for which I have a greater passion than that nebulous concept of Prorogation. It is the subject of the stories that my parents read to me by my bedside when I was a child. I agree that it sounds like a sad childhood, but such it was.

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made an ingenious argument about the dangers of this power remaining with the sovereign. He suggested that a Prime Minister presiding without a secure majority and having lost a vote of no confidence in this House might advise the sovereign to prorogue Parliament to avoid the possibility of Parliament passing a vote of confidence in an alternative Government and thereby bringing about an election, rather than the installation of a new Government. I am second to none in my passion for the nebulous concept of Prorogation, but I am no lawyer, unlike the hon. Gentleman.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not a lawyer.

[Nick Boles]

I withdraw that comment, Mr Deputy Speaker, which was almost certainly unparliamentary and banned by “Erskine May”. The hon. Gentleman said he felt he had a certain expertise in English law but not in Scottish law. I point out that my expertise in any law is equivalent to his expertise in Scottish law, so I am skating across boggy ground, if such a thing is possible.

The hon. Gentleman tried to argue that the power to prorogue should transfer to Parliament so that a Prime Minister who has lost his majority and lost the confidence of this House cannot use the power and the persuadability of the sovereign to remain in office and require an election to be called. He has an excessively colourful imagination. I understand that where no party has a clear majority in this House the role of the sovereign is to see whether a stable Government can be formed.

We saw a very good example of that after the last general election, when there was no clear result and no party had a clear majority in this House. The sovereign behaved impeccably in allowing and encouraging the parties, both the Labour party in government and the Opposition parties, to explore which arrangement was the most stable and to form the Government who had the most chance of lasting. Surely where a party in government has lost a vote of confidence in this House and no longer commands a stable majority here it would be an absolutely integral part of the sovereign’s constitutional role to invite the other party leaders to explore whether they could form a stable majority. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) frowns. I would be happy to take an intervention from him, but may I finish explaining my logic? He can then explain to me why, as so often, it is flawed.

The sovereign would invite other party leaders to see whether they could secure a stable majority and they would have those conversations even if Parliament had been prorogued. If a group of parties not then in the Government told Her Majesty—or His Majesty, on some future date—that they could form a stable Government and provided good evidence of that fact, and if the Cabinet Secretary were to advise that they were a stable Government, there is no reason why Her Majesty should not invite the leader of the parties putting together that constellation to form a Government. At that point, that leader would be the Prime Minister and could kiss hands—all of that can happen without Parliament being involved. That leader would then be the Prime Minister and would be able to “rerogue” or “unrogue”—I do not know what the correct term is—and recall Parliament, thus cancelling Prorogation, and put their Government to a vote of confidence. If they were successful, that would obviate the need for a further election. So I do not think that the logic of the argument made by the hon. Member for Rhondda holds.

18:15

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I apologise for not being here earlier in the debate, but I am seriously concerned about what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, which is a degree of politicisation of the monarch, as Head of State, from which I would draw back. If a degree of automaticity were involved and any Prime Minister of the day who could not form a Government automatically, as a convention, asked the leader of the next major party to form one, that would be one thing. If the monarch is making political judgments about who he or she should choose, that is a very different matter. When George V involved himself in helping to form the national Government in 1931 that was pushing the monarch too far into politics. Heads of State should not have that role.

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman also makes a strong argument and has much greater historical knowledge than I do. I would say only that if the Bill becomes law, it will become a clear part of our constitutional arrangements that the expectation, the desire and the will of the people is that we have fixed-term Parliaments lasting five years. Therefore, should there be an interruption that led to a vote of no confidence in a Government and the Prime Minister came to the sovereign asking for her to prorogue Parliament, it would be clear to the sovereign, who would also receive advice from her advisers, that there was a danger of frustrating the constitution and frustrating the will of the people for us to have elections every five years.

Given that the Prime Minister would have lost a vote of confidence in this House—in the old days that would normally have automatically led to their no longer having a right to govern—I do not think it would be classified as the sovereign “meddling” in politics were she then to say that she would invite alternatives if the Prime Minister could not tell her that he or she could form a stable Government without going to the people in an election. If the Prime Minister could not give her that reassurance, it would be entirely proper for the sovereign—her advisers would tell her this—to see whether the Parliament that had not run its full course did not contain an alternative stable Government who could be formed and for her to invite the relevant leader of any such Government to kiss hands, become Prime Minister and resummon Parliament to see whether they could win a vote of confidence. That is why the fear of the hon. Member for Rhondda is not justified. In fact, a reverse fear is involved.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Is not the very purpose behind the Bill and the cooling-off period after a vote of no confidence precisely to allow that to happen? The expectation would not be that Her Majesty or His Majesty would interfere in the political process. Under the Bill, such a situation would throw the game open to see whether a Government who can command the confidence of this House can be formed. People elect MPs and then, to a certain extent, they expect us to get on and govern; they do not expect us to squabble, throw our toys out of the pram and have another election because it suits us.

[Nick Boles]

My hon. Friend puts it far more succinctly and better than I could. The key point is that there is nothing to stop that process happening just because Parliament is prorogued. We do not stop existing or being able to have conversations with each other, with Her Majesty’s advisers or with senior members of the civil service because Parliament is prorogued. We would still exist, we would still be MPs and we would still be able to go through that process.

[Thomas Docherty]

“Erskine May” is quite clear about the fact that if Parliament is prorogued, all the Bills before the House fall. So it is not entirely accurate to say that there is no effect to proroguing Parliament.

[Nick Boles]

Of course I accept that, but it is not really what we are referring to. We are referring to non-legislative activity associated with forming a Government.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Would that not be crucial? A new Prime Minister from another party would want all the Bills of the old party’s Prime Minister to fall. Prorogation would be beneficial.

[Nick Boles]

Exactly.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong, I am afraid, much as I like him—

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) or me?

[Chris Bryant]

Both of you. I am quite happy to like anybody.

The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is completely wrong. A person from the same political party might want to take over. The no-confidence vote might apply to the Prime Minister as an individual rather than to the whole Government. I would agree with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) were it not for the way in which the Bill is worded, because it refers to the period of 14 days—not 14 sitting days. The House could be adjourned or prorogued during that period, or it could already be prorogued. There are many different situations in which we need to seize this power back into the hands of the House rather than the Government.

[Nick Boles]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who has thought about this for longer, more deeply and in a more researched way than I have, as I was invited to make this speech only a relatively short time ago.

[Dan Byles]

It is a slightly odd idea that we could have a vote of no confidence and that somebody from the governing party might take up the reins. Any party that had a vote of no confidence rather than a leadership challenge to change their leader would be highly irresponsible.

[Nick Boles]

My hon. Friend is right. There were moments in the previous Parliament when we all might have wished that the party in government had taken that route rather than imposing on us the rather long, drawn-out demise that we all witnessed.

[Chris Bryant]

Much as I like the other hon. Gentleman, whose name I do not know—[Laughter.] No, I do, but he was completely wrong. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire would be right if the Bill determined what counted as a motion of no confidence, but it does not. A motion of no confidence could be a motion of censure of an individual person. It might be tabled by the Opposition, and, if they won, they would end up unseating somebody as a party leader without unseating the Government.

[Nick Boles]

I have a sense that we will probably not persuade the hon. Gentleman here and now, although I have eternal optimism that we will persuade him of everything in due course.

Let me move on to the solution proposed by the hon. Member for Rhondda, which, to my mind, is as flawed—though also as ingenious—as his analysis of what he sees as the problems with the Bill. His solution is that this House, and exclusively this House, would have the power to prorogue. I believe that the House would adopt a resolution and the Speaker would then prorogue Parliament. The problem is another circumstance that the Opposition parties have talked about. When a Prime Minister with a rather small majority in this House feels, in the middle of a five-year term, that everything is going frightfully well, they might cynically decide to engineer a vote of no confidence that they would then instruct their Members to vote for in order to bring the House down, to prorogue and, more importantly, to have a further election. I have heard in earlier discussions that that vexes and worries Opposition Members and the hon. Member for Rhondda. Surely, his solution would fall prey to that ruse far more than happens under the current circumstances, when only the monarch can prorogue Parliament.

If a Prime Minister who felt that everything was going frightfully well and that if he had a quick election he could get a better majority could engineer a vote of no confidence by getting his troops to support it, surely he could engineer a resolution of the House to prorogue just as cynically, wilfully and arbitrarily. Does not the hon. Gentleman’s proposal move the power of prorogation, which currently sits in that special, rather hallowed constitutional place of being one of the few things that the sovereign does, on to the Floor of this House where it will become subject to all the machinations and swirls of this place and of ambitious Prime Ministers trying to secure a better majority?

[Chris Bryant]

Prime Ministers are by definition ambitious, I think—that was otiose. No. The Prime Minister, to all intents and purposes, is the Crown and the Crown, to all intents and purposes, is the Prime Minister in the exercise of prerogative powers. Secondly, there is a significant advantage in not just being able to prorogue and close Parliament by proclamation but having to come to the House to make a speech to argue for it. That is the big difference.

[Nick Boles]

Although I defer hugely to the hon. Gentleman’s greater understanding, he betrays a lack of a feel for how this constitution of ours works. The same criticism could be applied to some of his other amendments. The whole point of our constitution is that it is organic and flexible, and that it develops over time. Everything we do, every decision we make and every Bill we pass slightly shifts and changes the constitution. It is not a rules-based constitution but a practice-based constitution. Of course, there are rules—the Parliament Acts, the Salisbury convention and so on—but they develop and metamorphose as we use them.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

If I may, I would like at least to develop the argument enough for the hon. Gentleman to be able to fire it down good and proper.

Once we have passed this Bill and created five-year Parliaments and the expectation that they are the norm for this country, the constitution will have changed. The way in which the sovereign uses her powers to invite people to form Governments, to see whether they can win the confidence of this House, to prorogue and to accept advice from a Prime Minister will change. We will all make the argument that it would be profoundly unconstitutional for a Prime Minister who had just lost a vote of no confidence to abuse his power as the monarch’s sole adviser to advise her to prorogue a Parliament. It would be absolutely within the monarch’s rights to say, “I am defending the constitution. I am defending this new expectation that we should have five-year Parliaments by trying to see whether there is somebody other than this loser, who has just lost the confidence of the House, who can command a majority. That does not interfere with Parliament or government—I am in fact interpreting properly the will of the people, which is that we should have five-year terms.” I believe that the hon. Member for Rhondda thinks that these rules are unchanging and unbending and that they will not shift and metamorphose in response to the Bill.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman has referred repeatedly to the will of the people, but at no point did his party leader or the Deputy Prime Minister promise a five-year term. However, his party leader did say that if there was a change of Prime Minister, there would be a general election within six months. Why has that not been considered as part of the Government’s Bill?

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman is cunning, as ever. Unfortunately, in almost all his interventions in this debate—and in any other—he tends to argue that this House represents the sovereign will of the people, so it is a bit rich for him to shift ground and suddenly say that if something was not discussed in an election campaign, it did not receive the endorsement of the people. We are sufficient and entire unto ourselves, capable of representing the will of the people. If we decide, as I believe and hope we will, that we want to adopt this Bill, and if the gentlemen and ladies in the other place decide that they would prefer to have slightly more sleep and approve the Bill, we will have decided—we are the will of the people—that this is how we want our constitution to operate in future. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s ingenious objection.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend briefly explain why he feels that the change of a Prime Minister should trigger a general election within six months?

[Nick Boles]

The question that has been asked does not relate to the clause or the amendments and I defer always to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as to whether my comments would be relevant, although of course I want to be courteous to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I think we will stick with new clause 4.

18:29

[Nick Boles]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, from the bottom of my heart.

As I hear in the distance the light pop of the second bottle being opened in No. 10 Downing street, I shall move on to other amendments in the group. The hon. Member for Rhondda has talked about tidying up. “Tidy” is a great word, particularly when spoken in the inimitable accent not of the valets, but of the valleys. I rather share his love of the word, but not the concept. It is an entirely classic Labour reaction to try to make everything neat and tidy. His further amendments would tidy up and specify when Parliament would return after a general election, but he has not told us why or when this has been a problem in the past. He never said, “There was that famous time when something happened in the country and we were not able to discuss it because we had not returned,” or, “There was that famous time when the Prime Minister did not want to do PMQs and avoided them because she or he was so terrified.” He has not given any reasons to explain why things are not working at the moment, so this is one of the rare occasions on which I shall associate myself with the deep instinct of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset that we should not change things unless they are demonstrably broken.

[Mr Charles Walker]

Is not my hon. Friend making a good argument for retaining the current system and doing away with the Bill altogether?

[Nick Boles]

That is an even more ingenious attempt, Mr Deputy Speaker, because it is harder for me to appeal to you for succour on this point, but I reject my hon. Friend’s point because I believe that the Bill is one of principle. I believe that the idea of Prime Ministers picking the dates of elections is wholly outrageous in a modern democracy and that we must have fixed-term Parliaments. I happen to know that this argument has been raging inside the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour parties for years, so it is a cause of high principle.

The history of the British constitution is that changes of high principle happen only when the parties in power see political advantage in such change; that is how democracy works. Britain has been reformed when the great causes have been aligned with low party interest and I thank—I am not sure if I am allowed to say what I was going to say—the stars that in this Parliament at this time that alliance of high principle and low politics has come together and that we are putting through Parliament a Bill that will establish fixed-term elections and remove the Prime Minister’s right to choose a date that is to his or her advantage.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman. But I would be more convinced by his argument if the Bill were to apply after the next election, but this looks like a Government trying to perpetuate their term in office to five years.

[Nick Boles]

I detect from the hon. Gentleman’s expression and demeanour that he is worried, but he should not be because we genuinely want the changes to become permanent—as much as the constitution of our country can allow that. We genuinely want there to be, at least for as long as any of us can see, a habit, norm and expectation deep in our society that there will be elections in May every five years. I hope that is how the situation will be perceived in this country after the Bill is passed—without my hon. Friends’ amendments.

[Dr McCrea]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman should not be afraid to mention God. A moment ago, he was going to say, “Thank God,” but instead said “Thank the stars.”

[Nick Boles]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend—may I call him that? I feel as though we are friends even though we sit on opposite sides. I am always nervous about the customs of this place: I wanted to say thank God; I meant thank God; and frankly the stars have absolutely nothing to do with it. I am happy to be corrected.

Returning to the tidiness of the amendment of the hon. Member for Rhondda, he has not demonstrated, or even provided a shred of evidence to explain why the current point at which Parliament is recalled after an election is a problem or causes any difficulties. We should reject his amendment.

The hon. Gentleman has tabled another amendment to regulate the timetable for elections and he has again made a superficially appealing argument about lining up the different election timetables for different tiers of government, but it will not have escaped the attention of Government Members that he has, as ever, lined up with the longer figure. That betrays the deep belief of the Labour party, of which the hon. Gentleman provides a good example, that what the country needs are more politics, longer election campaigns, more leaflets going through doors and more people knocking on one’s door just when EastEnders is on or when a good game has started.

[Dan Byles]

The House has faced a big problem with fundraising and the increasing cost of democracy. Would not longer election campaigns lead to more expense and a greater requirement for parties to raise funds? We all know that parties get into trouble however they try to raise funds, so is this not the wrong direction to go in?

[Nick Boles]

I agree entirely.

[Chris Bryant]

Well, the hon. Gentleman should not, because if we extended the 17 days to 25, there would be less need to raise money because the amount that can be spent in a short election campaign is much more circumscribed than the amount that could be spent across the whole of the previous year. With a fixed-term Parliament, it should be possible to restrict the amount of money much more readily, so that is a further reason—I am glad he has added another—for him to support my amendment.

[Nick Boles]

I am not sure I understood that point, so, in a traditional Tory way, I am going to reject it because the hon. Gentleman said it.

The issue is whether the timetables should conform to the lower figure of 17 days or the higher figure of 25 days. My instinct, and probably that of most Government Members, is that any conformity should be to a shorter election campaign and a quicker decision. However, we must then address the issue of whether it is appropriate to determine that figure in this Bill. I believe that the Bill makes a fundamental constitutional change—to that extent I agree with those of my hon. Friends who are uncomfortable with parts of it—but that is why I support it. I want that fundamental constitutional change and I want it to remain for ever. I want it to be something that people will describe in 25 or 30 years’ time as one of the big constitutional shifts in the life of modern Britain. Because the Bill will make such a fundamental constitutional change, I do not want to hang about with all sorts of little, pernickety tidying-up exercises. I do not want to lumber the Bill with measures that might seem irrelevant in future, thereby opening the door to further amendment. I want the Bill to have as few clauses as possible—clear clauses that are based on the principled position that the timing of an election should not be up to the Prime Minister but should be a matter of rhythm and pattern defined by our constitution.

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

Is it not in the nature of these issues that parliamentarians will take the opportunity, when a relevant Bill comes before the House, to deal with matters for which such an opportunity might not come again for a long time? What is the hon. Gentleman’s position on the amendment? Does he agree that the election period should be the same for local, parliamentary and Assembly elections, but not that it should be extended? Clearly, there are advantages to having the same period for all elections, not least in terms of calculating election expenditure for returns.

[Nick Boles]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman and I agree with him. If we are to have, as I hope we will, elections falling in a regular pattern, coinciding with other elections to other important democratic bodies, it seems obvious that there should be a consistent series. Otherwise, people would find it very confusing if local election campaigns had started while the parliamentary election campaign they all knew was coming had not. In such a situation, if parties put out leaflets with councillors on one side and a parliamentary candidate on the other, they might get into trouble for jumping the gun. The point he makes is absolutely right, but we should not necessarily decide here and now, in this Bill, between the proposals for 17 or 25 days, or even that the length should be 17 or 25 days. If we want to make this change, should we not think a bit harder about what the period should be? I have only thought of it on the spur of the moment, but I think I could make a very strong case for 12 days, and if someone wants to enter into a bit of a Dutch auction and say eight days, I would be happy with that too.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong, because one major reason why we might want a slightly longer period is to allow people who register for a postal vote to get their vote in on time. The hon. Gentleman’s Government will be legislating for prisoners to have the vote; they will vote by post, as I understand it. In addition, as I heard him say earlier, people who live abroad—especially those in the armed forces—who vote by post would find it impossible to do so within a period of eight or 12 days. They already find it very difficult to do so within 17 days but they do manage to do so within the 25-day period for local elections.

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman is being a trifle unkind because he knew I was being a little light-hearted and frivolous; indeed he indulges himself in such behaviour. Whereas we allow him to get away with it, he has taken my light-hearted conjectures as a serious suggestion. What he has done, however, is to demonstrate the force of my argument, which is that we should have a proper discussion, separate from the Bill, about the question, “What is the right time period?”

There are many good counter-arguments; the hon. Gentleman has enumerated some of them. My sympathies for those prisoners denied their right to vote are more limited than my sympathies for the other categories of potential postal voter that he mentioned, but I am sure that those prisoners too will have their defenders. Should we not have a separate debate on a separate piece of legislation on this question—if legislation is required? Maybe it is required, but I do not think that we should be making this amendment to a Bill that needs to stand the test of time. It needs to rest as a keystone in our constitution that lasts through the ages and is not eroded by time. I hope, therefore, that everyone in the House will choose to reject the new clauses and the amendments proposed by the hon. Gentleman.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

My childhood, unlike that of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), was not peppered with bedtime stories of prorogations and other interesting matters.

Before I speak to the two amendments in my name, I want to discuss new clause 4 and some of the other amendments on Prorogation. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that anomalies left in legislation can lead to all sorts of continuing questions, and to absurdities and abuses. In so far as we are trying to create fixed-term Parliaments and trying to set out in clear and reliable terms the circumstances in which an election can be brought about early, we should as far as possible have those arrangements as tidy—to use the hon. Gentleman’s valleys word—as possible.

However, I accept the point that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford made: that the amendments of themselves would not sort out all the questions. If our real fear is that a future Francis Urquhart Prime Minister will exploit these anomalies and devices to create all sorts of problems, we should recognise that the amendments themselves would not fully prevent that, because a Machiavellian Prime Minister who was able to marshal and control votes in the House would be able to do exactly the same with Prorogation. To a degree we are in the realm of,

“There’s a hole in the bucket, dear Liza”.

Each time we try to solve the problem, we come back to the basic issue of trust and control—the control that a Prime Minister and Whips could have in the House, where things rest on a vote determined by the Prime Minister.

I believe, however, that important amendments tabled by Members on the Opposition Front Bench would at least ensure that there are not open and blatant inconsistencies between election spending windows for different elections that could be taking place fairly coterminously. Simply as a matter of good legislative practice, we should as far as possible try to resolve those problems and keep things squared now.

Also in response to what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said, if we are serious about the Bill being a fixed-term Parliament Bill, and if its purpose is to prevent people from being surprised into an election or an election from being called at a stroke, it could help if we had clear fixed time limits for Prorogation, such as those that are being suggested. I am somewhat like the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) in that I come from a political tradition that does not particularly like caps being doffed in the House of Lords or anywhere else, so I would prefer to avoid the constitutional eccentricity of Prorogation, but if that is part of the chosen furniture and architecture of this place, at least let us ensure that we do not trip over it in a dangerous way.

18:45

Amendments 14 and 15, which are in my name, would amend clause 2. As with some of the comments that the hon. Member for Rhondda made in proposing new clause 4, my amendments 14 and 15 are intended to question the Government’s argument that the Bill is about removing prerogative powers from the Prime Minister to call elections. It was said in earlier debates on the Bill that the significant move is that the current Prime Minister will be the first to give up that power. If that is the case, why, when an election is called early under clause 2(1) or the confidence measure in clause 2(2), is it left to the Prime Minister to recommend the election date? Clause 2(1) relates to when a vote takes place in the House of Commons for an early election date and that vote is certified by the Speaker. I believe that in such circumstances it should be entirely possible for the House, in such a Division, to specify the date rather than leaving it up to the Prime Minister.

This matter arose in debates at earlier stages. Some amendments had come from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, and some of its amendments brought us into the situation where everyone in the Chamber at Committee stage was talking about the provisions of clause 2(1) and (2). They talked about the vote taking place in close calendar quarters to the calling of the election, whereas I believe that we should make clear provision relating to clause 2(1) to allow Parliament to vote a year or, even two years ahead of the due date of an election, to say, “No, for good stated reasons we are going early.” It might be that England has finally won a bid for the World cup and that tournament will coincide with the due date for an election, and people might well sensibly say in advance that they want to move it—similarly for the Olympics or another event. People seem to be very taken with royal weddings at the minute—perhaps some such event could be taking place in close proximity to the due date for an election, in which case Parliament might very sensibly agree to move the date forward. As the Bill stands, Parliament cannot do that.

[Mr Charles Walker]

If we support the notion of a fixed-term Parliament, which I do not, surely we have to accept that risk. If we support the idea of a fixed date in the calendar, it is just tough if there happens to be a royal wedding at the same time. We cannot have it both ways.

[Mark Durkan]

That sums up my view on royal weddings, but that is my own prejudice.

Another argument that has been made is that the Bill is about removing a prerogative from a Prime Minister and giving powers to the House. If that is what we are saying—not just that the Prime Minister is giving up some powers, but that the House is getting some—my amendment would ensure that the House gets more powers. The House should be equipped, not just to pass a motion calling for an early general election, but to specify the date—instead of leaving it to the Prime Minister to recommend to the monarch when that date should be—and there should be provision for Parliament to do so sensibly in advance. The amendments that we all debated in Committee all presumed that it would be in a matter of weeks, similar to the debate that we have just had about 17 days and 25 days’ Prorogation—in other words, in fairly close calendar quarters. I believe that we should make provision in clause 2(1) to allow the House to set a date, as amendment 14 would allow. It would provide a fourth point that could be covered by a Speaker’s certificate: whether or not a date was specified and what the date was. Amendment 15 would amend clause 2(6), so that the date could be specified.

[Mr Dodds]

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument. I am a supporter of the Bill in principle, but having established the fixed-term principle in legislation, is not the danger of his amendments that, by resolution of the Commons proposed by the Prime Minister who rallies his troops, the principle would be effectively undermined by setting another date? So what would be the point of legislating in the first place?

[Mark Durkan]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but let us remember that the Speaker can issue two types of certificate—under clause 2(2), which relates to confidence motions, and under clause 2(1), in respect of a resolution passed by two thirds of Members—and my amendments deal only with those circumstances. If we legislate for a resolution to be passed by two thirds of Members and for the Speaker to certify certain things about that, it would be a gross oversight not to provide for hon. Members, in so voting in such a Division, to specify a date if they wished to do so, rather than to leave that up to the Prime Minister.

I do not wish to go into the constitutional twilight zone that the hon. Member for Rhondda took us into about some of the wily vagaries of prorogation powers, but if we simply leave it to a Minister, even the Prime Minister, to set a date and make no provision for the House to specify a date, we leave ourselves open to possible uncertainties and, indeed, abuses. I remind the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) that we have served in an Assembly where a Secretary of State had certain powers and obligations for setting election dates. There have been court cases about whether or not the Secretary of State had duly exercised those powers and whether he had chosen not to see things and then said that he had exercised the power to set a date by simply setting the same date that had been suggested. People have used the different devices that the law allowed.

I am simply saying that if we charge the House with the possibility of setting a different election date for its own good reasons—I assume that they would need to be good reasons if the motion was supported by two thirds of Members—we should at least allow the House to specify the date as well if we are to hold to the spirit of the Prime Minister giving up powers.

Like other hon. Members, I have serious reservations about Speaker’s certificates. My amendments would not suspend any of the qualifications that I and many other hon. Members have on that subject—the worries about the implications in terms of courts and so on—but the more that we charge the House with powers and controls in relation to the issue, the more content I would be with the Bill.

[Dan Byles]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important discussion. The entire issue of fixed-term Parliaments, sadly, is in danger of becoming yet another political football to be kicked around the House, as Members seek to manufacture objections to reform, and to posture and grandstand. I fear that the new clause and amendments for the most part would not add to the Bill in any meaningful way. The issue is really very simple. I believe that the Bill will strengthen the power of the House over a key constitutional issue and diminish the Prime Minister’s power.

Before coming to the detail of the new clause and amendments, let us remember exactly what this historic Bill is about. Previously, the Prime Minister had the power to ask for an early Dissolution of Parliament at any time. Historically, that extraordinary degree of power has been used solely to the political advantage of the party in power.

[Mr Charles Walker]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that we have had a fairly settled democracy for the past 350 years? So there are aspects of the system that he can recommend to the House as well.

[Dan Byles]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for alluding to an argument that I have heard time and again, when people suggest, “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it,” but I shall come to the problems with the current situation in a moment. He also alludes to the interesting idea that we have a democratic system that works, so we should not amend or tinker with it. I have heard Opposition Members support that idea before. I have heard it suggested that, somehow, the Bill is undemocratic. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friends, I find that an extraordinary argument. That line of reasoning seems to suggest that the only truly democratic system is the one that has evolved in this country—the one that we currently use. Such reasoning suggests that it is not possible to amend our system without somehow making it less democratic, even though it concentrates power in the Prime Minister’s hands. The Bill will devolve the power to call a general election to the House, which is surely where it belongs.

If one were to follow that line of reasoning to its absurd conclusion, it would suggest that other western nations are somehow less democratic than ours, simply because they have democratic systems different from the one that we enjoy. In the United States Congressmen and women serve a two-year fixed term. The President serves a four-year fixed term. Senators serve six-year fixed terms. Clearly, that does not make the United States less democratic than we are simply because its system is different from ours. In France Members of the National Assembly are elected for five-year terms—the period that the Bill recommends. The President is also elected for a five-year term. The Senate is selected for a six-year term.

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, but Members of the Assemblée Nationale are elected for terms of up to five years, not fixed terms.

[Dan Byles]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for correcting me. That was not my understanding, but I will bow to his superior knowledge. The French model has an interesting lesson to teach us about leaving the power to dissolve Parliament with the Executive, as opposed to the system that we are now considering. The President of France has the power to force Dissolution early, but that is not supposed to be the norm; it is supposed to be used only in an emergency. It has been used only twice in an emergency, in 1962 and 1968, but it has been used three times for political advantage—in 1981, 1988 and 1997—thus clearly demonstrating that if we leave such a power in the hands of the Executive, it will inevitably be used for party political advantage.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The Bill still seems to allow the Executive to do that, because they can force a vote of no confidence in themselves. Therefore, what we are achieving is simply changing the rules by which an early election can be called, not making any fundamental change to the constitution.

[Dan Byles]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s typically pithy and interesting contribution. The point has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and while my hon. Friend is technically correct, I find it hard to imagine that a Government who wished to call an early general election for their own political advantage would engineer a vote of no confidence that they would then lose on the Floor of the House, because that would be a disastrous start to a general election campaign.

19:00

[Kelvin Hopkins]

When I first heard the suggestion, I thought that the electorate might consider that such a Government had behaved irresponsibly and therefore should not receive its support, but if the vote was a simple device for calling an early election that took only a few hours, the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has a point, in that the mechanism would just be another way of calling an early election, and the position would not be very different from where we are now.

[Dan Byles]

I will have to agree to disagree with hon. Members about this, but I do not think that a Government going into a general election would want to see headlines on the front pages of The Sun and other tabloids screaming, “Government falls after losing confidence vote in the House”.

[Mr Charles Walker]

Surely any legislation could be avoided if Prime Ministers were to say at the start of their term whether they intended to run a five-year Parliament. If they backed out of that arrangement with the electorate after two and a half years, they would be judged accordingly, so why on earth do we need legislation?

[Dan Byles]

My hon. Friend makes a truly innovative suggestion.

[Thomas Docherty]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dan Byles]

I shall be delighted to find out whether the hon. Gentleman can answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).

[Thomas Docherty]

At the risk of rushing to the hon. Gentleman’s rescue, I suspect that Labour Members tried that approach in the previous Parliament, and I do not recall it ending particularly well for the former Prime Minister.

[Dan Byles]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his clever and well-reasoned argument.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Returning to the question of party political advantage, why does the hon. Gentleman think that the Government have chosen to specify a term of five years, rather than four, in the Bill?

[Dan Byles]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman raises that question, because I would like to address that issue, which is one of the “straw man” arguments that opponents of the Bill regularly cite. Some who oppose the Bill argue against the whole principle of fixed-term Parliaments, while others claim to support that principle, but tackle the issue of whether the term should be five years or four.

What should we make of the term set out in the Bill? I think that I am safe in saying that the term length is a key sticking point for Labour Members who accept the principle of fixed-term Parliaments yet still cannot bring themselves to support the Bill. Many of them hang their hat on the fact that five-year, rather than four-year, terms are proposed.

If we are to consider that point in detail, it is important that we understand where we are and how we came to be here. At present the maximum length of a Parliament is five years—let us make no bones about that—and I do not recall any recent cries of anguish from Labour Members that the historical five-year Parliament is wrong. Indeed, that maximum limit was established under the Parliament Act 1911, so Labour Members have had a long time to express their opposition to five-year Parliaments. The 1911 Act reduced the maximum length of a Parliament to five years from seven years by amending the Septennial Act 1715.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

May I remind my hon. Friend that the reduction from seven to five years took place because the House of Lords was no longer able to block legislation, and it was therefore thought right that things should be referred to the electorate within a reasonable time? In 1911 Members thought that that period was five years, and what they thought in 1911 is a jolly good thing to think in 2011.

[Dan Byles]

As ever, I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his point. He and I believe that the wisdom of our forefathers should not be lightly dismissed.

[Mr Walker]

If my hon. Friend believes that the wisdom of our forefathers should not be easily dismissed, why is he supporting the Bill?

[Dan Byles]

I do not understand my hon. Friend’s point at all. Our forefathers decided that five years was a reasonable maximum length for a Parliament.

[Chris Bryant]

But when our forefathers reached that view, they pointed out that although the maximum length of a Parliament would be five years, in practice the length would nearly always be four years.

[Dan Byles]

The hon. Gentleman has advanced that argument before, but I am aware that another interpretation is that if a Parliament lasts five years, only about four years’ work gets done in practice, because Governments find it harder to get their business through in the final year as people are looking ahead to the next general election: in effect, the election campaign starts.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

As the House knows, three of the past five Parliaments have run for five years, so it is not unreasonable to use five years as a guide.

[Dan Byles]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point.

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) likes to cite a figure of 3.7 years as the average length of a Parliament since 1945—he does not need to jump up and do so again now—but we need to tackle that statistic head on, because it is quite disingenuous. The statistic includes the three occasions on which a Parliament lasted for less than two years. No one would suggest that Parliaments of less than two years should be the norm—they occur in unusual circumstances—so it is misleading to include them in statistics to show the average length of a Parliament since 1945.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Is not the great advantage of our present system that if a Government do not get a particularly big majority—such as in 1964 and February 1974—the arrangements are sufficiently flexible to allow us to hold another general election fairly soon afterwards so that one party or another can get a reasonable majority?

[Dan Byles]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting argument, because he seems to suggest that any Government of the day should have such a strong majority that they can bash their legislation through. I believe that Labour Members referred to that arrangement as an elective dictatorship when they were on the wrong side of such figures in the 1980s. In this day and age, if a Government need to be a bit more consensual and cleverer about getting their business through the House, it is considered to be a good thing. Do we really want to say that whenever a Government do not have a huge thumping majority we should have another election?

[Dr McCrea]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Bill was born out of real conviction, and has nothing to do with political convenience designed to enable the Government to keep going over five years while we get out of the economic mess that we are in?

[Dan Byles]

I genuinely do not believe that that is the reason.

My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) pointed out that three of the past five Parliaments lasted five years, and I was developing a point about the average length of post-1945 Parliaments. If the three failed Parliaments lasting less than two years are stripped out, the average length of a Parliament since 1945 has been more than four years. Since 1974 the lengths have been even greater, so there is a clear trend that Parliaments are lasting longer.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman’s logic, but does he accept that, with the exception of the Parliament between 1987 and 1992, every Parliament since the 1950s that has lasted longer than four years has ended with the defeat of the governing party at a general election? Frankly, if the Prime Ministers in those Parliaments could have gone on longer they would have done, just to avoid the electorate.

[Dan Byles]

If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that Parliaments that last for five years are more likely to end with the defeat of the Government, he should be wholeheartedly embracing the coalition’s plans to make this Parliament last for five years.

If there is something so constitutionally or democratically wrong with five-year Parliaments, why on earth did we have to endure the previous Government from 2005 until 2010? If five-year Parliaments are wrong in principle, as several Labour Members seem to suggest, why did not the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)—I apologise if I have not pronounced the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency correctly, but as I have heard him speak in the House so rarely, I am not sure how to pronounce it—do the entire country a favour and call an election in 2009? We then could have started clearing up the mess of the worst financial deficit that this country has faced since the second world war a year earlier.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Obviously there is a debate about whether the figure should be four years or five—although nobody has proposed a fixed-term Parliament of 3.7 years. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while there is not necessarily a massive difference between four years and five years, given the total and absolute mess that the country is in, having a term long enough to enable us to get out of that mess is a good idea?

[Dan Byles]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. One problem sometimes cited in relation to a democratic system such as ours is the tendency for Governments to take the short-term approach to fixing problems. If five years became the norm, that would help to create slightly more stable government, because Governments could look to the longer term when considering some of the difficult decisions that they might have to make, and not always be worried that they were only a few years from a general election.

It seems that five-year Parliaments are not a problem for Labour Members when it is their party that is clinging to power in the dying days of a Government, as was the case in 2009 and 2010. True to form, their principles changed the moment they found themselves in opposition. Now, sadly, they stand as obstacles to reform.

May I conclude the point about whether the term should be four years or five, and move on with my speech?

[Mr Charles Walker]

Is my hon. Friend not concerned about the prorogation of Parliament? Will he address that matter when he has finished his opening remarks?

[Dan Byles]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am extremely concerned about that point, and very eager to get on to the part of my speech in which I shall address it. However, I want to conclude the point, which I was pulled on to by interventions, about whether the term should be fixed at four years or five. I turn again to the conclusions and recommendations in the report on the Bill produced by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which has already been quoted today by Labour Members. Recommendation 5 clearly states:

“Precedent gives no clear answer as to whether Parliaments should last four years or five.”

In recommendation 6 the report acknowledges the views expressed by some witnesses that four years might be better than five. Nevertheless, the recommendation clearly states that that

“is an important point, but not one that we would wish to see obstruct the passage of the Bill through the House.”

That is important, and I hope that Labour Members will take note of it.

Before moving on to the subject of the amendments before the House, I would like briefly to—

[Thomas Docherty]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. My understanding of the procedures of the House is that Members need to refer directly to the proposals on the amendment paper, not rehash or rehearse a debate that took place previously, and at some length.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

First, it is for me to decide whether a Member is straying out of line. I would say to Mr Byles that he has to keep in order on new clause 4. He has drifted a little, but he keeps coming back to the matter of four years or five. I am sure that he has taken those remarks on board, and that we can continue.

[Dan Byles]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have almost come to the end of my scene-setting remarks and will get into considerably more detail on the amendments very shortly. Before I do, I want to refer to confidence votes and thresholds, which have already been mentioned this afternoon, including by Labour Members.

Although we are moving to a system of fixed-term Parliaments, it would clearly be unusual and wrong to put in place a system that did not allow for early elections, in one of two scenarios: if the confidence of the House could not be held by a party leader, or if there were an emergency of some sort, or another exceptional circumstance that required an early election in the national interest. I believe that the Bill as it stands, unamended—

19:15

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should be relating his remarks to new clause 4 and the amendments grouped with it. We do not need to drift back to other subjects; we have gone beyond them. I remind him that we need to stick to the subject in hand.

[Dan Byles]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I apologise. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I say to those on the two Front Benches, can we please continue?

[Dan Byles]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I shall move on to new clause 4, which sets out new rules for the Prorogation—I have as much trouble as the hon. Member for Rhondda with that word—of Parliament. It would repeal the Prorogation Act 1867, which provides the power for Her Majesty to issue a proclamation for the Prorogation of Parliament. I think I got that right.

As the House is aware, Prorogation marks the end of a parliamentary Session and is the formal name given to the period between the end of one Session of Parliament and the state opening of Parliament, which begins the next Session. The parliamentary Session may also be prorogued before Parliament is dissolved and a general election called.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the term “prorogation” is derived from the Roman concept of prorogatio. In the constitution of ancient Rome, prorogatio was the extension of a commander’s imperium beyond the one-year term of his magistracy. Prorogatio developed as a legal procedure in response to Roman expansionism and militarisation.

In the context of the Westminster system, Prorogation or Dissolution of Parliament on the final day of the Session originally, according to the House of Lords Library, comprised four principal elements. First, the Speaker made a speech mainly concerned with the Subsidy Bill, which he had brought up from the Commons. This was followed by a speech from the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper replying to the points made by the Speaker and expressing thanks for the Subsidy Bill. Royal Assent was then given to the Bills passed by both Houses. Finally, the Lord Chancellor, in obedience to the sovereign’s instructions, either prorogued or dissolved Parliament. The sovereign was customarily present on those occasions, and from the 17th century onwards, usually made the speech before Prorogation or Dissolution.

Hon. Members will, I am sure, be fascinated to learn from the Library’s excellent note that

“In the early nineteenth century the prorogation was still accompanied with considerable ceremony. Thus in 1815 the Prince Regent rode in the State Coach with a cavalry escort through St James’s Park to the Palace of Westminster, and on his arrival was announced with a salute of cannon.”

[Mr Walker]

A lot of Labour Members are muttering at the history lesson that my hon. Friend is giving us, but is he not demonstrating how important it is in this matter to set the scene in an historical context, bearing in mind the fact that we are overturning 350 years of constitutional precedent?

[Dan Byles]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is exactly the point that I would have made.

The Bill is truly historic. That fact has been mentioned by numerous Members on both sides of the House, and to consider it in isolation—what it means to us now, rather than its place within the sweep of the history of our nation—would be wrong.

[Chris Bryant]

I agree that historical precedent is important, but I think the last time the monarch was involved directly in a speech made before Prorogation was 1851 or 1854, so we are going back some time. Since then there has been quite a transformation of the Prorogation system.

[Dan Byles]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It may interest the House to know that in the 1830s King William IV was going to come in person to prorogue Parliament, because that would bring all business to a stop and the Government did not like the business that was going on. I believe that, in the end, that turned out not to be necessary.

[Dan Byles]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Again he demonstrates why it is so important to maintain a thorough understanding of history if we are to understand exactly what our position in this place is in the context—

[Mr Walker]

Is there not a danger that at times we in this place give the impression of having the clear thinking of the totally uninformed?

[Dan Byles]

It pains me wholeheartedly to agree with my hon. Friend that that is absolutely the case.

[Chris Bryant]

In 1831 the row about Dissolution and Prorogation, which was all about the proposed Great Reform Act, led to a phenomenal row in this House between the Conservatives and the Whig Government, precisely on the basis of whose decision it should be that Prorogation should proceed.

[Dan Byles]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for joining our discussion of the history pertaining to Prorogation. I am glad that he has recognised that understanding the history of how we have got to where we are today is relevant to the discussion at hand. However, as the House is clearly not in the mood to discuss history today, and as I am aware that time is pressing, I want to move on and make a final point about amendment 9 before bringing my remarks to a conclusion.

Clause 3 states:

“Once Parliament dissolves, Her Majesty may issue the proclamation summoning the new Parliament which may…

(a) appoint the day for the first meeting of the new Parliament”.

Amendment 9 would add:

“within 15 working days of the polling day”.

The issue has already been discussed, but I am concerned that the amendment remains a little woolly. I question its purpose. What does a working day mean? Does that take into account religious holidays? There has already been a discussion about whether “working day” or “days” should be used. If that is an issue that the Opposition are concerned about, the term “working days” remains vague. Are bank holidays in other parts of the United Kingdom to be taken into account?

Is it not difficult to add “within 15 working days” in such specific terms, when “working days” could mean something entirely different in another part of the United Kingdom? In particular, why is Labour adamant about 15 working days? Is there any rationale or logic behind this number? Why not 14 days or 16 days? If we believe in evidence-based policy making in this place—[Interruption.] I detect some chuckling. Perhaps that is a dangerous thought. Evidence is not always welcome in this place. I have discovered that in previous debates. Perhaps when he sums up, the hon. Member for Rhondda will explain to us why 15 days is the magic number, not 14 or 16.

The House has indulged me enough. Time is pressing and there may be others who wish to speak. I thank the House for its attention.

[Thomas Docherty]

I shall keep my remarks brief as I understand that the Prime Minister might be rushing back to make a statement to the House about the commercialisation of Downing street following the revelations from the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) earlier this evening. I understand that the Liberal Democrats have a large campaign debt to pay off from Oldham East and Saddleworth.

May I gently tease colleagues on the Government Benches about the importance of referring to the United Kingdom when speaking about our nation state? I am sure all colleagues are aware that we are not just England or Britain; we are the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) helpfully referred to an earlier edition of “Erskine May” with reference to the shouting of the phrase “Shame!” from a sedentary position. It might help the House if I clarify that that applied up to the 19th edition of “Erskine May”. Since then, I am advised, the term has been removed from “Erskine May” and is therefore, I imagine, legitimate.

Addressing new clause 4 and the associated amendments which, as “Erskine May” says, is the purpose of the debate, I shall tackle head-on the question whether the Opposition support the principle of a fixed-term Parliament. It is well known that we did not oppose Second Reading because we support the principle of a fixed-term Parliament. Our specific objections have been not just to the length—four or five years—but to some of the technical issues, which is why my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda and for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and others have tabled a series of tidying-up amendments, as we would describe them, although I understand that not every hon. Member supports that principle.

[Mr Charles Walker]

As a matter of interest, how will the hon. Gentleman vote on Third Reading tonight?

[Thomas Docherty]

I do not like to leave the House in suspense, but on this one occasion hon. Members will have to wait and see how many of our amendments the Government are prepared to accept. Clearly, if the Minister accepts all the considered amendments that we have offered, we would be more than happy to give strong consideration to supporting Third Reading. I look forward to the Minister’s reply shortly.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend is being very generous to the Government. Even if they accepted the amendments, I would be inclined to vote against Third Reading.

[Thomas Docherty]

The Minister is a thoroughly reasonable individual and I am sure he will not hold that statement against the rest of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition when he considers accepting our amendments.

As has been outlined previously—it would be inappropriate for me to go into great detail—we do not support the principle of a five-year term, for one practical reason that has not been touched on before, which is that it would take us into a clash with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland elections that are scheduled for 2015.

As this is the first opportunity that the Minister has had to address the House on the matter since our Committee stage last year, I hope that he will be able to provide us with an update on the Government’s plans for providing flexibility to the devolved Administrations to vary the dates of their elections. That is an extremely personal matter, as I shall explain. Perhaps he can tell the House what progress has been made in his consultation with the devolved Administrations on how any such alteration of the date of their elections would be achieved.

That is directly relevant to the issue under discussion because of the different number of days of Prorogation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda outlined, we have 25 days for the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the National Assembly for Wales and local elections, and just 17 days for this place. Let me give a simple local example to show why new clause 4 and others are so important to the date.

The differing number of days will cause great confusion for parties and for the electorate in the 2015 election cycle. Part of my constituency is the Dunfermline East Scottish Parliament seat. We have an MSP called Helen Eadie. Under the current rules—we still do not have firm proposals from the Government to alter the date—some two and a half weeks from polling day it would be legitimate for the Labour party, for example, to send out leaflets saying, “Vote Helen Eadie for your Member of the Scottish Parliament and vote Thomas Docherty for Member of Parliament.” That is an unsatisfactory situation, and it is the reason why my hon. Friend and I are hoping to persuade the Minister tonight that he should change the length of Prorogation to 25 days to give us consistency across the whole of the United Kingdom.

There is also the question of how campaign finance will work. Members are painfully aware of the importance of ensuring that money is correctly apportioned to the long campaign, as it is commonly known, as opposed to the short campaign. Joint elections could give rise to difficult legal and technical disputes, as we saw in the case of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), if sums of money are inadvertently misallocated. We therefore hope that the Government will accept our reasonable amendment.

[Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that such anomalies already exist and have existed for a long time? In England it is common for local government elections to be held on the same day as a parliamentary election. In Bristol those local government elections follow an entirely different timetable from the parliamentary election.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly sensible point, although I always caution hon. Members not to equate local elections in England with elections to the devolved Administrations. There is a substantive difference in the amount of spend that is allowed, and the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland devolved elections use the same formulas for election spend. Perhaps it was an oversight of previous Governments not to address the valid point that the hon. Gentleman makes. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has said, we are prepared to admit that we did not achieve all the legislation that we would like to have achieved, although if we were to ask the electorate what was the most important thing that we could have achieved, fixing that would not necessarily have been the top priority.

Reference has been made to the issue of Prime Ministers handing over power to their party or other parties. I think that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford misunderstood the difference between the House being adjourned and the House being prorogued. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, if the House is adjourned, existing legislation is not lost. If it prorogues, however, all legislation except public Bills falls and the legislative process must start again. That is why it is important that when the Parliamentary Resources Unit produces its next brief for Conservative Members it should spend some time getting those details correct.

19:30

The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, and several other Government Members, asked for examples of when Prime Ministers have succeeded leaders of their own party in that office. Obviously, Prime Ministers from both main parties have succeeded without general elections and without the need for the House to prorogue. That happened in 1957, 1963, 1976, 1990 and, of course, 2007.

[Mr Walker]

Does the hon. Gentleman not think that that is a perfectly healthy thing to happen? We do not elect Prime Ministers here; we elect parties and the Prime Minister is simply a Member of Parliament who comes from the victorious party or the coalition.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman makes a completely sensible point that goes to the heart of some of our arguments tonight. I will give a specific example, because there has been some discussion of the fact that none of those cases was the direct result of a no-confidence vote. I remind the House that in 1940 the Government of the then Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, fell on what is largely accepted to have effectively been a vote of no confidence. It was a no-confidence vote by any other name. As the Parliamentary Secretary and the Deputy Leader of the House have accepted, under their proposals there could be a no-confidence motion that is not officially stamped as such. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, in 1940 the House did not prorogue. There was simply a change of Administration, and a short time later a coalition Government were formed involving all three parties. In the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Chamberlain Government, there was no coalition, and nor was the House prorogued.

[Damian Collins]

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the vote that followed the Norway debate, which the then Government won. However, they chose to change their leadership anyway as a result of the pressure of the vote. If circumstances were repeated and that was considered to be a confidence motion, it would not lead to the fall of the Government unless they chose to go.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman highlights a crucial element, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle mentioned earlier—the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that was an Adjournment debate and was not even a formal resolution. That shows exactly the problem with the Bill as it is worded. It accepts the principle that there is no requirement for a formal vote of no confidence, but it does not accept those nuances that are part of the argument that, even if a Government win but do not meet a threshold that they have set beforehand, they have in effect fallen.

I can think of another example from our devolved Administrations. It was clear in 2001 that the then First Minister of Scotland, Henry McLeish, had lost the confidence of the Scottish Parliament and of his party. On the morning of the no-confidence debate he resigned as First Minister. That did not lead to the proroguing of the Scottish Parliament. It was an unprecedented event in the short history of the Scottish Parliament, but it survived. I hope that the Minister will, even at this late stage, take on board the fact that, as far as Oppositions ever are, we are seeking to be helpful to the Government, and certainly to the House, by providing some technical amendments to tidy up the Bill.

The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) referred to France and the United States. I was not aware that he was such a Francophile, but perhaps that is the result of the new coalition spirit. My understanding—I am happy to be corrected—is that the French President has the power to dismiss the Prime Minister summarily, but I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is not advocating that we adopt the same position in this country.

As the Minister knows, I am something of a bore on the subject of the United States’ constitution. When the founding fathers of the United States were considering the peculiarities of their arrangements in the constitutional convention, one thing they desperately tried to avoid was over-lengthy terms of office. That is why they have elections every two years in their states. Votes for Congress, the Senate and the Presidency are staggered. Although I accept that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire is trying gallantly to defend the Minister’s position, I fear that it is not a straightforward example to apply in this case. I have spoken in favour of the amendments, but I am conscious that the Prime Minister will be rushing to the House and that the Minister wishes to reply, so I will end my comments.

[Mr Heath]

I do not think that the House has had as elegant and extensive a debate on Prorogation since the legislation was passed in 1867. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for opening the debate and to the hon. Members for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), for Foyle (Mark Durkan), for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) and for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) for their contributions. I must say, however, that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife blotted his escutcheon as a political anorak by being four editions of “Erskine May” off the pace. To quote the 19th edition when we are now up to the 23rd is really beyond the pale.

[Thomas Docherty]

For the benefit of the Deputy Leader of the House and of the Official Report, my point was that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) referred to the fact that up until the 19th edition of “Erskine May” the word “shame” was not allowed. My point was that we have moved on, and I have the 23rd edition in my hand.

[Mr Heath]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for restoring my faith in his credentials, although he has destroyed those of the hon. Member for Rhondda.

The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford put his finger on what was wrong with the debate once we had prised him from his views on reasonably priced white wine, because he made the point, which I think was backed up by the hon. Member for Foyle, who mentioned an Urquhart-like Prime Minister, that many of the rather apocalyptic views of what an evil denizen of No. 10 might do seem to be founded on fancy, rather than on experience or expectation. We have been asked repeatedly to assume that every convention that applies has applied and will apply, whether the Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, or not. All those conventions would be summarily set aside.

It has been suggested that there would be confidence motions that no Member of the House, not even Mr Speaker, would recognise as confidence motions. It has been suggested that Prime Ministers who lose a vote of confidence might refuse to resign and remain in office despite the fact that they had lost the vote, or that if once they resign they might somehow give posthumous advice from beyond the political grave to Her Majesty to prorogue and therefore frustrate the intentions of the House and of the legislation. It is then suggested that Her Majesty, in a way that has never been the experience of any Member of this House or our predecessors, would be so forgetful of her constitutional duty that she would not ask another leader capable of commanding the confidence of the House to form a Government and end any temporary Prorogation.

I believe that those are fanciful concerns. I accept that they are theoretically possible, but I ask the House to consider whether any of those things have happened. Almost all of them are included in the conventions that cover our political system and our current constitutional arrangements and will persist after the passage of the Bill. I am indebted to the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which someone casually looking at our debate might imagine had been critical of the provisions in this part of the Bill, but far from it. It examined the matter in some detail, and the witnesses were unanimous in their view. Paragraph 147 states:

“Professor Bradley agreed that such a possibility, while theoretically possible, ‘would be very unsatisfactory and British politics would have sunk to a new low.’”

Professor Bogdanor was mentioned earlier, and the confidences of the tutorials between him and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) might or might not have been breached, but he suggested that the situation could reasonably

“be left to the discretion of a ‘wise constitutional monarch’”,

which is indeed what we have,

“who would not prorogue at the request of a Prime Minister who no longer had the confidence of the House.”

The Committee, having heard the evidence rather than the conjecture, concluded:

“We agree that the risk of abuse of the power of prorogation is very small. We therefore conclude that Her Majesty’s power to prorogue Parliament should remain.”

So, there was very clear advice from the noble members of that Lords Committee, and I am sure that it will colour their consideration of the matter.

We have heard from lots of people who profess to know what happened in Canada, but, just in case there are lingering concerns about the extraordinary situation of the Prorogation that apparently saved the Canadian Government, I note that the Lords Committee took evidence from an academic who probably knows a little more than any of us in this House about the Canadian political system. Professor Henry Milner, from l’université de Montréal, stated in his evidence:

“The Canadian case was unique because prorogation saved the government, which it normally should not. ... [The] circumstances [were] so unusual that you could not imagine them. I would have to give you each of the steps in the Canadian case, all of which were unlikely and all of which fitted together. Frankly, I would not worry about it.”

That is probably a safe conclusion for this House.

On the proposed changes before us, I shall deal, first, with new clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda, and the consequential amendments 2, 3 and 4, which would give the House a new and exclusive power to prorogue Parliament. Most contributors to the debate were clear about this, but we need to make a clear distinction between Dissolution and Prorogation, because they are very different things, and the Government believe it important that the Bill provides the House with the power to decide when there should be a Dissolution of Parliament.

It is legitimate to give the House control over early Dissolution, because that will take place only in circumstances where the Government of the day have lost the confidence of the House and can therefore no longer lead the country effectively, or where a two-thirds majority of elected MPs has passed a motion calling for an early election. Those are matters directly concerned with the choice of Government and the election of Members, and it is right that this elected House should have primacy.

Prorogation, however, is a different matter. Hon. Members will know that it is a mechanism to bring to an end a Session of Parliament. It determines, subject to the carry-over procedure, when Bills must have completed their passage through both Houses so that they become law. That relates to the point that several hon. Members made, whereby, if we prorogue while Bills are still in process, they are lost. Sometimes, an incoming Government will wish that; sometimes, they will not, particularly if they are of a similar political complexion to the previous Administration.

The hon. Gentleman’s new clause places no obligation to consult or agree with the other place on the timing or length of Prorogation, even though it affects that House equally. The new clause would therefore give this House a controlling hand over the conduct of business in the other place by providing us with the power to dictate when the other House must have completed its business. That would be a significant departure from the current situation in the wash-up, and some might view it as an unwelcome extension of this House’s powers.

As I said in earlier debates, through this Bill the Government seek to make only those changes to the constitution necessary to facilitate the principle of fixed-term Parliaments. The proposed new clause seems to fall wide of that intention.

19:45

I have to draw attention to a few technical deficiencies. I am always slightly loth to do so, as Members often wish to raise and debate a principle and the drafting falls short of their intention, but we need to examine the matter, because we are on Report. First, there is some ambiguity about where the actual power of Prorogation would lie.

Proposed new subsection (3) states:

“The Speaker of the House of Commons shall not make such a declaration unless the House of Commons has passed a resolution directing him to do so on or before a specific date and time.”

So, the House would clearly direct the Speaker. In proposed new subsection (4), however, the Speaker may vary the period of Prorogation by an unlimited number of days, apparently without a direction from the House.

There is no mechanism to specify how the Speaker might make such a declaration when the House is not sitting on account of its having been prorogued. That is particularly important, given that the new clause states that the Speaker may vary the date of Prorogation “to an earlier…day,” presumably to provide for the option of recalling Parliament when it is prorogued. We can only assume, however, that the new clause intends the Speaker to have the power to decide unilaterally when Parliament may return from a period of Prorogation, and, if it is intended that the Speaker should do so on advice, the new clause does not make it clear on whose advice that would be. If the intention is that the House must direct the Speaker when varying the period of Prorogation, the proposed system will not allow that to happen, and that seems to be inconsistent with the desire to place the power relating to Prorogation with a decision of the House itself.

Further, it is not clear whether proposed new subsection (3) is intended to replace or supplement the existing Prorogation announcement that is made to both Houses and read in the other place with this House in attendance. I accept that that is not an insuperable barrier to the new clause, and we have heard differing views on the value of the Prorogation ceremony: the hon. Member for Rhondda rather likes it; the hon. Member for Foyle feels that bicorn hats are not his style. Nevertheless, that is part of our constitutional settlement and part of the procedures of the House, and a lot of people quite like to wander down the corridor to hear the Prorogation ceremony and, as the hon. Member for Rhondda says from a sedentary position, a little Norman French—which we hear so little of nowadays.

On the basis of those arguments, the Government are not able to support new clause 4 and its consequential amendments.

[Thomas Docherty]

I have listened attentively to the Minister’s remarks. Notwithstanding his reluctance to support our reasoned amendment, will he outline where he has got to, therefore, in discussions with the devolved Administrations about how the elections will work, and outline when we will see proposed legislation? Clearly, there is a significant knock-on effect for devolved elections.

[Mr Heath]

I would do so, but that would impinge on the following group of amendments, and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), will be able to respond to that point during the debate about them. It would be unwise for me to leap ahead, so, although I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s point, I hope that he accepts my response.

I shall address other issues that have been raised in relation to the Prime Minister’s existing power to prorogue Parliament, because, as I stressed at the beginning of my response and stress again, many of the arguments are based on the theoretical mischief that, somehow, a Prime Minister might prorogue Parliament for his or her own purposes, without accepting the fact that they can do so equally today. They can do so, as I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Rhondda, to prevent a vote of confidence that they feel likely to lose. So, with the Bill we are not strengthening the hand of the Prime Minister; far from it. We are taking away one critical element, but Prorogation will remain exactly as it is.

The conventions of this House are sufficiently strong. For instance, there is no obligation in law for the business managers to find time to debate an Opposition motion of no confidence, but the strong convention is that time will always be found for that purpose, because it is a convention that has worked well over the years. I do not believe that there is any reason why it should not work well in the future. I cannot accept that the artificial process that has been described is a real danger.

Let us consider the circumstances. There are two basic scenarios during the 14-day period in the Bill. In the first, political factors mean that a no-confidence motion passes, and there is no obvious alternative Government, so the Prime Minister who has lost the confidence of the House remains in place to fight the election. There would be no need, or indeed point, for the Prime Minister to prorogue the House. The alternative is that the Prime Minister resigns after the no-confidence motion and Her Majesty appoints a new Prime Minister. Even if the new Prime Minister took office and found the House prorogued, he or she would, under the current arrangements, ask the Queen to recall Parliament. Although I acknowledge the principle behind new clause 4 and amendments 2, 3 and 4, I hope that I have demonstrated that it would be unwise and unnecessary to make them.

On amendment 9, clause 3(4) specifically preserves Her Majesty’s power to set the first day for the meeting of a new Parliament by royal proclamation. As it stands, the date of the first meeting of a new Parliament is set by proclamation and is usually agreed with the House authorities and the palace. The date is conventionally set out in the proclamation that dissolves the old Parliament. The Bill retains as much as possible of that approach by providing for the Queen to issue the proclamation summoning the new Parliament once the old Parliament has dissolved, rather than after the new Parliament has been elected. Following the last election, a date was chosen that allowed sufficient time for the large number of new Members to be inducted. It is important that such flexibility is preserved.

The purpose of amendment 9 appears to be to require Her Majesty to set a date for the first meeting of a Parliament that is within 15 working days of the general election. Again, I have a quibble over drafting, because it is not entirely clear whether the intention behind the amendment is that Her Majesty should issue the proclamation within 15 working days, or whether the first meeting of Parliament should take place within 15 working days. The hon. Member for Rhondda made it clear that his intention was the latter, but that is not clear in the drafting of the amendment. Our primary purpose in the Bill has been to establish fixed terms and set out the procedures for initiating an early election. We have made only the necessary consequential changes to the Queen’s powers. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to press amendment 9.

Amendments 14 and 15, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle, suggest that if the House votes for an early Dissolution under clause 2, it should be able to choose the date of the ensuing general election. The Bill provides that if there is to be an early general election, the date will be set by Her Majesty the Queen in a royal proclamation on the advice of the Prime Minister. That is to ensure that an appropriate date can be found, for instance so that the poll can be held on a Thursday, as has become standard practice.

Although amendment 14 provides that the date of an early general election would be set out in the Speaker’s certificate, that would be the case only if the House of Commons had specified such a date in the Dissolution motion. That is a genuine concern with the amendment because a two-thirds majority is required to agree that there should be an early Dissolution. Under the amendment, two thirds of the House would also have to agree to the date of the election. It is quite possible that Members would agree to the one proposition and not the other. Alternative dates and amendments could therefore be tabled. That would muddy the water of what should be a clear-cut process. That is a concern about the operation of the Bill, if it is enacted, which perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not considered.

[Mark Durkan]

Amendment 14 would make it optional, not obligatory, that a date be specified. If the House votes a year or more in advance of the election, why should the date not be fixed then, rather than it being left up to the Prime Minister? Under the Bill, the House, by a two-thirds majority, would be handing a power back to the Prime Minister that the Prime Minister says he wants to give up.

[Mr Heath]

I do not dismiss the hon. Gentleman’s arguments. I understand what he is saying. However, in purely practical terms, it is difficult for the House to receive advice from any quarter on what would be an appropriate date. The House as a whole would find it difficult to take the sort of advice that the Prime Minister, as an individual, could easily assemble. In the politically charged atmosphere of a vote of no confidence, it is hard to understand—[Interruption.] Sorry, not a vote of no confidence. I could see what the hon. Member for Foyle was thinking. In the consideration of an early election, it would be even more difficult to set.

There are always technical issues in establishing the most appropriate date for a general election, and the considerations of all parts of the United Kingdom must be taken into account. I know that the hon. Gentleman has had mixed experiences, but he knows that it is the experience of the devolved Administrations that it is useful in the circumstances that have been suggested for an individual to have this responsibility. Giving it to the House as a whole would be technically difficult, without a significant advance in the arrangements being achieved.

I move on to amendment 8, which the hon. Member for Rhondda said “makes things tidy”, in the words of his valet. I am sure that it would, and I have some sympathy with his argument. The amendment would lengthen the election timetable by requiring Parliament to dissolve 25 working days before polling day, rather than 17. The Government recognise that remaking the election timetable is a complex matter that we should consider. However, it cannot be done simply by edict and without the background work.

The Electoral Commission supports the idea, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He did not make a great deal of that in his speech, but I know that he knows the background material. The commission has suggested that an extension to the electoral timetable would support participation by overseas and service voters, and better support the effective administration of elections. We agree that it is an important issue, and the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated to the commission that there is merit in exploring a change to the timetable. However, as the commission has pointed out, it would require a thorough review to ensure that any change is consistent with the arrangements for elections across the piece.

A host of practical issues and consequential complexities must be considered. We will have to form a balanced judgment on where particular milestones would best fall within an extended election timetable. For example, there might be competing views about the deadline for nominations, and we would have to work to find the most effective compromise. Another crucial milestone is the deadline for registering to vote, which, although not part of the timetable structure, is inextricable from it. That illustrates that such changes to the timetable cannot be made in isolation. As part of the process, we would need to consider the current deadlines for postal and proxy vote applications. Additionally, different elections across the UK run to different timetables and moving to 25 days in Westminster would not, of itself, generate consistency.

As I have said, the Government agree that this is an important issue and we will set out our proposals on the timetable in due course. We have held initial discussions with the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators to identify points to address. It should be noted that the Bill already greatly enhances the ability of administrators and candidates to plan ahead, because we will know when general elections will happen, usually at least five years in advance. The various people involved in running elections will be able to factor that into their thinking and organisation. Even if the provisions for an early election were engaged, the Bill sets out clearly the steps from the Dissolution motion or no-confidence motion to the Dissolution of Parliament, and those steps will be conducted in the public eye. There will be no more snap elections, and I believe that electoral administrators and candidates can be glad about that.

The final reason for asking the hon. Member for Rhondda not to pursue amendment 8, despite its merit and the fact that the issue needs to be considered, is that the Bill is not the right place to amend the election timetable. The Bill is about fixing the date of the poll, not wholesale electoral reform, as we have said repeatedly. Governments are constantly urged by everyone to have focused legislation that deals with specific objects. This is just such a piece of focused legislation and I do not want to cloud the simple but constitutionally significant issue of fixing parliamentary terms with other electoral issues.

Having said that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who have tabled amendments will not press them to a vote, so that we can continue with the debate on the final group of amendments.

[Chris Bryant]

I note that the Prime Minister’s drinks party has clearly ended, because the whole Conservative party has gathered in the Chamber. We heard earlier that the Prime Minister had been serving reasonably priced drinks, so I hope that all hon. Members paid for them.

20:00

The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) accused me of being far too tidy. Nobody has ever accused me of that before. He thinks that trying to tidy up legislation is a socialist endeavour, but surely that is what we do. The constant process that we are engaged in—the constant iteration of legislation—means looking at the common law and regularly updating it in statute. For instance, I do not know whether he knows what a brothel is, but—[Interruption.] I see from his face that he does. In common law, the definition of a brothel is a place frequented by men to perform lewd homosexual practices, including dancing, so sometimes it is necessary to correct the common law. Some of what we are doing in this Bill is putting convention and common law into statute. The danger is that we will end up with a series of unintended consequences, and that is what I want to tidy up.

The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted much less electioneering and campaigning, which is why he wanted shorter election campaigns—in a lighter moment he said that he wanted an eight or 12-day election campaign. I would just say to him again that there would be great advantages in having a 25-day election campaign. It would mirror what happens in the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and local elections, and would allow service voters, who regularly try to vote, but whose votes do not arrive in the post in time, to have their votes counted. I very much hope that we will be able to move forward on that.

I welcome what the Deputy Leader of the House said about the measure just now, although I have never heard a Minister say at the Dispatch Box about an amendment, “This is the right Bill to do it in”—it is always another place where it should be done. However, I am afraid that we are going to hold his feet to the fire on this occasion.

The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles), who holds the record in the “Guinness World Records” for rowing across the Atlantic, took us through a fair amount of British history. He effectively argued for longer and longer Parliaments. What I would say to him—and to all Government Members—is that the provisions in the Bill will mean that this Parliament is the longest Parliament in the world, as was confirmed by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) this evening. The fixed term of five years, plus the additional provision of another two months, will make it the longest in the world. There will be fewer elections because of what this Bill will do. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), who is not in his place, said that the current special circumstances made that all the more important. That is the charge that every dictator has always advanced: that one should fix the constitution to meet the special circumstances of the day.

The hon. Member for North Warwickshire asked why we had specified 15 working days, and also asked what the definition of a working day was. If he had actually read the Bill, he would see that clause 3(5) says:

“In this section ‘working day’ means any day other than—

(a) a Saturday or Sunday;

(b) a Christmas Eve, Christmas Day or Good Friday;

(c) a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in any part of the United Kingdom”.

At his next outing in the Chamber, I look forward to his reading the Bill before he takes part in the debate.

The Deputy Leader of the House—these will be my concluding remarks—said that we had created a demon in people’s eyes, with this image of an evil denizen living at No. 10. Some of us are not all that impressed by the present denizen of No. 10. However, when we start putting into statute some of the elements of the conventions that have applied in this House across the centuries, there is a danger that people will use their powers inappropriately. I believe that the right to sit and the right not to sit should be determined not by the Crown, the Prime Minister or the Government of the day, but by this House. I therefore urge hon. Members to support our new clause, which has been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

20:04

Division 172

Ayes: 229

---

Labour: 215
Scottish National Party: 5
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Independent: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 325

---

Conservative: 269
Liberal Democrat: 50
Democratic Unionist Party: 5

New Clause 5

Expiry and revival of section 2

‘(1) Section 2 expires when the Parliament summoned to meet in May 2010 dissolves.

(2) In the course of the first month of the day of first meeting of any Parliament after the expiry of section 2 as a result of subsection (1) above, the Minister may by order bring the section back into force for the remainder of that Parliament.

(3) An order made under subsection (2) above is to be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.

(4) If no order has been made under subsection (2) above, an early parliamentary general election is to take place only if the House has passed a motion that there should be an early parliamentary general election.

(5) The polling day for an early parliamentary general election under subsection (4) above is to be the day appointed by Her Majesty by proclamation on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

(6) If a polling day is appointed under subsection (5) above, the reference in section 1(4) to the polling day for a parliamentary general election appointed under section 2(6) shall be construed as if referring to a day appointed under subsection (5) above.’.—(Mr Cash.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

20:19

Division 173

Ayes: 233

---

Labour: 217
Conservative: 7
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 321

---

Conservative: 260
Liberal Democrat: 51
Scottish National Party: 5
Plaid Cymru: 3
Alliance: 1

Clause 1

Polling days for parliamentary general elections

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 5, at end insert

‘save as provided for by subsection (2A) below.

(2A) If a day before 7 May 2015 has been appointed under section 2(6) as the polling day for an early parliamentary general election, the polling day for the subsequent parliamentary general election shall not be 7 May 2015, but shall instead be set by reference to subsections (3) and (4) below.’.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 10, page 1, line 8, at end insert

‘, no notice being taken of any early parliamentary general election as provided for in section 2.’.

Amendment 11, page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (4).

[Simon Hart]

Amendment 1 was tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, who apologises for not being here in person.

I hope not to detain the House for too long. Amendment 1 is a probing amendment, which the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee agreed should be tabled to ensure that the Bill was technically sound. Clause 1(3) and (4) provide for the clock to be reset if an early general election is called, and for the date of the next scheduled general election to be shifted to four to five years after that early election. Those provisions, however, do not seem to apply to the next general election, which is scheduled to take place on 7 May 2015. The Bill seems to require an election to be held on 7 May 2015 even if an early election has been held before that date, perhaps only a few months before—although I suppose that depends on how it is interpreted. The Government have made clear their policy that the clock should be reset each time there is an early general election, and I do not suppose that they mean to make an exception for 2015.

I appreciate that the Government have already announced that the next general election will be held on 7 May 2015 and not before. Can the Minister reassure us that, in the unlikely event of an early general election during the current Parliament, the Bill as it stands would not require a further election to be held on 7 May 2015? If he cannot give that reassurance, is he prepared to accept the amendment? That would make it crystal clear that if an early election took place before May 2015, the date of the next election would be four to five years later, not in May 2015.

[Chris Bryant]

It is a great delight to see the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). It is always odd when constituencies contain bits of the west and bits of the south and bits of the north, all aligned with each other. May I just notify the hon. Gentleman that I shall be in his constituency on Friday evening? Now I have got that out of the way. He will be glad to know that I shall be addressing a Labour party meeting—although I am sure he will be welcome to come along if he wishes.

As for the hon. Gentleman’s argument about amendment 1, I entirely agree with him that the drafting of the Bill is deficient in this regard. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has done a remarkable piece of work in the short time it was given to do its work, and I am glad it has been able to come up with this amendment. I had worried that there was not going to be a Committee member to move it, because neither of the two Committee members whose names are attached to it is present this evening, which is a shame.

I also want to speak to amendments 10 and 11 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Lord Chancellor my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), and myself. Amendment 10 would amend clause 1 by adding that “no notice” should be

“taken of any early parliamentary general election as provided for in section 2.”

That is basically to say that, notwithstanding that there might have been an early general election, the next general election will be on the date that had already been specified.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that one of our primary objections to the Bill is that it refers to five-year Parliaments rather than four-year Parliaments, which we would prefer, we none the less subscribe to the belief that it is good for parliamentary democracy to have an expectation about when the next general election will be, and for Parliaments to be for fixed terms, especially because our broader electoral system is now analogous to that of the United States of America in that we have local elections on a four-year cycle, Assembly elections in Wales and Northern Ireland on a four-year cycle and the parliamentary elections in Scotland on a four-year cycle. We know the dates when they will take place in perpetuity into the future, so it makes sense to have the same pattern and rhythm in elections to this House. That is why we have advanced this amendment, which, in essence, would mean that we would not start the clock again. Consequently, we would know whether elections were going to coincide with certain local elections or elections for the devolved Administrations. That is a better model than the slightly haphazard manner in which we may proceed if the Bill proceeds unamended in this respect.

There is one other advantage. The Government have written to the devolved Administrations about the fact that the next general election would coincide with their elections in 2015 unless the Prime Minister brings our general election forward by two months or delays it by two months, and the Minister has written asking them whether they think it would be better to have a new power added giving them the right to delay their elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by six months. I have spoken to various Members of the Welsh Assembly, including the First Minister, and he is clear that it would be wrong suddenly to change the date of the Welsh Assembly elections because Parliament had decided that its elections were to be at a certain point in 2015, thereby either prolonging the next Welsh Assembly by six months or shortening the one thereafter by six months. Moreover, if we are deciding that the best time of the year to have elections is the first Thursday in May, it would seem wrong suddenly to decide that everyone else should have to get out of the way and have their elections in November. Also, just shunting the devolved Administrations’ elections away by a month or two months is likely to harm those elections substantially, because I do not think that voters want to come out very regularly, within a month or two of another general election.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

It is not just that it is a burden on the electorate to ask them to come out and vote twice in a short period. One of our concerns about the local government and Assembly elections that will be taking place in Northern Ireland—as well as the referendum—is that the campaigns will become blurred and people will focus less on some of them and more on others.

[Chris Bryant]

I think that is absolutely right, and I fear that the likely outcome of that is that most people will end up voting purely and simply according to party, rather than according to the candidate, which would be a damaging direction of travel for British democracy. We would prefer deliberately to avoid a coincidence of the Scottish Parliament elections with the general election, and we think that the best way of doing so is by having a four-year fixed-term for this Parliament and by not restarting the clock. We would thus not have constant uncertainty about the year of the general election.

[Dr McCrea]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Electoral Commission has written to the Deputy Prime Minister on this issue, and the right of the devolved Administrations to lengthen the period by six months? It letter states:

“the Commission believes that there remains a clear need for…research to be carried out”—

forthwith—

“to ensure there is a robust evidence base to inform decisions about the timing of elections in 2015.”

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, I am aware of that and I completely agree with the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The Government cannot just pull at individual strings of the constitutional settlement, because we will just end up unravelling the whole jumper: that is the law of unintended consequences, which we are in danger of having thrust upon us.

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

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that four years seems to be the normal cycle. Does he agree that if the Government are intent on pushing ahead with a five-year fixed term, the natural thing to do would be to do the same thing with the cycle for the National Assembly for Wales, and change its term to five years?

[Chris Bryant]

I suppose it would, but I am not in favour of five-year terms. Political events change at a dramatic pace these days and a five-year term would not meet that requirement. I suspect that such an arrangement would mean that Governments both here and in the devolved Administrations would more regularly be at the fag-end of their sense of having a mandate, and a four-year provision would be much better. I am sure that we shall return to this matter on Third Reading.

I have no desire to delay the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I think that I have made my point. In essence, it is that we believe it would be better to have a four-year fixed-term Parliament, because that would help us to avoid the elections for the devolved Administrations coinciding with the general election. We need change only one other measure to make sure that that never happens; we need to provide that we do not start the clock again when there has been an early general election. The Government’s intention is to try to make us fall into the rhythm of fixed-term Parliaments and not have lots of early general elections, and such a provision would give people an added incentive not to seek an early general election because they would know that they would then have only a short Parliament before the next general election, which would fall on the previously arranged date. Without any further do, I shall conclude and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Mr Harper]

The amendments relate to the date of the election and it is worth touching on the points that a number of hon. Members have made about the coincidence of the proposed date of 7 May 2015 with the date of the devolved elections. It is worth saying, as we said in Committee, that it is entirely possible and, indeed, likely that, regardless of whether or not this Bill was introduced, the UK general election could have been held on the same day as those devolved elections if this Parliament had run for five years. In some sense, the Bill provides an opportunity, because it has highlighted and crystallised that fact at an early stage, when we have the chance to debate the consequences and do something about it.

As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, and as we discussed in Committee, I wrote to all the party leaders in the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament proposing to give their Assembly or Parliament the power to extend its term by up to six months. That was to go alongside the existing power to shorten the term by six months to provide a window of a year in which it could vary the date of the election to avoid that once-in-20-year coincidence with the Westminster election.

[Dr McCrea]

The Electoral Commission’s letter said that there was a

“need for a comprehensive research study on the implications of combining elections”

and that the Commission was “not aware” that that work had taken place up to the moment of writing. Has that research commenced?

20:45

[Mr Harper]

I heard very clearly what the hon. Gentleman said in his intervention on the hon. Member for Rhondda, and I was going to refer to that point anyway. Let me finish this part of my speech and I shall come on to that.

I wrote to the party leaders. They wrote back and I think it is fair to say that they were underwhelmed by the proposal to give the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament the opportunity to extend their term by six months to provide that one-year window. For that reason, the Government did not table an amendment on Report, as we had suggested that we might if the responses were more positive. The party leaders and Presiding Officers raised some other points, some of which the hon. Member for Rhondda has raised today, about alternatives. We are considering them and will write back to the party leaders as well as keeping the Opposition and the House informed. For the benefit of Members, I should say that copies of the letters that I have written have been placed in the Library of the House today.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful for the tone in which the Minister is responding to this part of the debate. For his information, his office sent me a letter by e-mail today, apparently responding to a letter I sent him on 21 December. It was in fact a letter about something completely different, so if he could arrange for the actual letter to be sent to me, I would be grateful.

[Mr Harper]

I replied to a letter that the hon. Gentleman sent to me. He might find—I can absolutely get him a copy—that the letter about the letter to the party leaders went to the shadow Secretary of State’s office today. I can make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets a copy directly and, as I said, I placed copies of those letters in the Library of the House.

The Electoral Commission’s letter made some sensible points about considering all the issues raised by combination. It seems to me that there are two kinds of issues: first, the practical delivery of elections—how we make the mechanics run—and, secondly, making combination easier. That is not just related to the devolved elections and those for the Westminster Parliament. The fact is that whether or not one agrees with the Government’s proposals, we are proposing elected police commissioners and some elected mayors, so there will be more elections and more of them will take place on the same day. Therefore, we need to make that easier. Another issue that came up in the debate, which is serious and valid, concerns the extent to which media coverage and so on means that two different conversations can be going on at the same time for different elections. That will obviously engage the political parties, broadcasters and people more widely.

The Electoral Commission’s suggestion is very good, but it has not taken place to date. The Government think there is some support for it, but given where we are in the timetable and given that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wanted to consider the experience of the combined elections in Northern Ireland this year, it might be a good idea to consider what happens with the referendum and elections in May—in only a few months’ time—and use that experience to kick off some project along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) once the Government have considered the suggestions from the party leaders. That might give us a possible route forward.

[Chris Bryant]

The Minister referred to elected police commissioners and more directly elected mayors. Will he confirm that they will all also be on four-year terms, rather than five-year terms? If he wanted to provide a little more tidiness—I can see him smiling, because he knows how this sentence will end—he could change this five-year fixed-term Parliament to a four-year Parliament, even if he only did it for after 2015.

[Mr Harper]

Not representing a valleys constituency, I do not have the same urge for tidiness as the hon. Gentleman. I am happy with our relatively untidy constitutional settlement. I have no problem with that at all.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister has said that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will monitor what happens with the elections that will take place this year. After he has done that, will there be close co-operation and consultation with the parties and the Electoral Commission to find the correct way of proceeding and learning from anything that goes wrong? Is that the suggestion?

[Mr Harper]

Yes, I have discussed this with my right hon. Friend and he intends, as we have discussed in Committee and announced to the House, to consider the experience from this year. We want to work with all the parties in Northern Ireland, just as I have written to all the party leaders in the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, to reach some agreement on what works well, what does not work and what needs to change. That will be very much on a cross-party basis.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I understand that the Deputy First Minister in Wales would prefer a five-year cycle for the National Assembly for Wales. Is that on the table for the Government?

[Mr Harper]

I will not start picking bits out of individual letters, but, given our debates in the House about preferences for four or five years, it is interesting that there have been suggestions from party leaders about moving the devolved Assemblies on to a five-year cycle. Given what has been said here and that the devolved Assemblies and Parliament were set up after considerable debate and have been on a settled model for some time, that would be a big jump and quite a change to the constitutional settlement.

[Naomi Long]

The Minister has talked about considering the context of the forthcoming Northern Ireland Assembly elections coinciding with the referendum campaign, but a better comparison would be the impact on the local government election campaign, in which the same range of parties will fight on very different issues. We need to consider this issue in that important context because the referendum campaign will not be party political in that sense and so is not directly comparable to running party political campaigns at the same time. The issue with running a general election campaign alongside an Assembly election campaign in Northern Ireland is that media coverage will focus on the general election campaign in a UK context, looking at parties that do not garner votes in the Northern Ireland context.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. When the Deputy Prime Minister and I introduced the Bill, we said that a UK general election coinciding with a devolved legislature election would be qualitatively different from a referendum campaign coinciding with a devolved legislature election for the very reason that the hon. Lady says—there would be a narrative and a debate going on and there would be questions about whether the media, newspapers and broadcasters would fairly cover both parts of the debate and whether the public could therefore take properly informed decisions in both elections. We need to consider that issue with all the parties and broadcasters and see whether there are ways around it.

Let me address amendment 1, which my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) moved on behalf of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform. The intention of the amendment is to clarify that, in the event of an early general election—before 7 May—under subsection (1) or (2) of clause 2, the general election specified in clause 1(2) would not take place, but the Bill already makes it clear that the general election of 7 May 2015 would take place only if no intervening early general elections under the procedures in clause 2 had occurred. Clause 1 sets the date for the first scheduled general election, “subject to” clause 2—those words appear in the first subsection of the Bill’s first clause. If there were an early general election, it would replace the election of 7 May. The Select Committee has been very helpful in scrutinising the Bill and its amendments have brought about some good debates. Amendment 1 is good in that it has enabled this debate, but it is not necessary because the Bill is already clear.

Amendments 10 and 11, which the hon. Member for Rhondda spoke to, would mean that the parliamentary term following an early general election would last only for the remainder of the previously scheduled term. To use a phrase that the Committee used in its report, it would keep the clock ticking on the five years whether there was an early general election or not. There has been quite a lot of speculation among academics and others on whether that would act as a disincentive for a Government or strong Opposition to engineer an early general election because a new Government would get a term of perhaps only a few months. We did think about that, and we debated it in Committee. The flip side to that is that there is an election in which a Government get elected, perhaps with a significant majority, quickly followed by another election. That explains the Government’s choice of wording.

There is a technical problem with the amendments. An early election could take place just before the scheduled election but the scheduled election would still be held. The rules for the devolved assemblies provide a window, so that if the early election takes place very close to the scheduled election, the scheduled election does not take place. If the early election is more than six months before, the scheduled election still takes place. As the amendments are drafted, there could be an election only weeks before the scheduled election, and the scheduled election would still have to be held. That would not make a great deal of sense.

[Chris Bryant]

The Minister is right; that would be the eventuality. However, I think that would fly in the face of what in practice would happen politically, because some six to nine months before a general election people would choose not to bother to militate for an early general election—they would just accept that the next general election was coming. I understood that that was what the Minister was trying to achieve—fixed-term Parliaments.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman was hypothetically pessimistic earlier. Now he takes the opposite approach: he is being hypothetically optimistic. The Government’s view was that we could have that early general election and the Government could be returned with a large majority, and we think the public would expect that Government to govern.

Interestingly, the Constitution Committee in the other place agreed with the Government’s approach. Its report concludes that a newly elected Government should have a full term of office, and that the Government would present its programme to Parliament through the Queen’s Speech, which, of course, is traditionally considered to be a test of confidence. We think that in that situation the Government should have the right to carry out their programme for the full five years, and it would make little sense to ask the voters to go back to the polls when they had sent out a clear message.

I accept that that is a debatable point—we had a significant debate in Committee—but let us look at it from the public’s end of the telescope rather than our own. If we were to have an early general election, because the Government had lost a confidence vote or because there had been a general sense that we should have an early general election, it would seem a little ridiculous if the public had made a clear choice, sent a Government into office with a significant majority, and then a few months later were back doing it all over again.

I think that, on balance, the Government’s decision and the current drafting of the Bill make sense. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, on behalf of the Select Committee, to withdraw his amendment 1 and I urge the hon. Member for Rhondda, just for once, to think about whether he really wants to press amendments 10 and 11 and potentially force the British people to undergo election after election in close succession—something which neither he nor I would want to achieve.

[Simon Hart]

I am much encouraged by the Minister’s comments and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

Dissolution of Parliament

Amendment proposed: 8, page 2, line 29, leave out ‘17th’ and insert ‘25th’.—(Chris Bryant.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

20:59

Division 174

Ayes: 234

---

Labour: 215
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Scottish National Party: 6
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 314

---

Conservative: 261
Liberal Democrat: 52

Third Reading

21:11

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am grateful to Members who have taken part in debates on the Bill, in particular the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who sadly is not in his place, and members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, who have been forensic in their scrutiny.

The Bill’s reforms are an essential part of the Government’s drive to modernise Parliament. Currently, a Prime Minister can, effectively, call an election on a whim—a situation that my colleague and friend, the late Lord Holme of Cheltenham, once described as a race in which the Prime Minister is allowed to approach the track with his or her running shoes in one hand and the starting pistol in the other. Something as important as the timing of a general election must not be determined by the whims of Prime Ministers and the self-interest of political parties. I believe that all parties agree on that. The Bill proposes the introduction of fixed-term Parliaments, bringing a new stability to our political system and, crucially, ensuring that when Parliament does dissolve early, that is a matter for this House.

Debate on the Bill has been vigorous. That is why we allowed extra time in Committee. While we may not see eye to eye with colleagues on the Opposition Benches on every detail, throughout the debates there was broad agreement on what it seeks to achieve.

Let me turn briefly to some of the issues that have attracted most attention. First, on early Dissolution, the Bill provides that Parliament will be dissolved early only if at least two thirds of MPs vote for Dissolution or if a Government are unable to secure the confidence of the House of Commons within 14 days of a no-confidence vote—passed on a simple majority, exactly as is provided for right now.

Those arrangements are complementary. They are workable. Most importantly, they strengthen the power of Parliament to hold Government to account. We are proposing a new power for the House to vote for an early Dissolution, as well as, for the first time, giving legal effect to the existing procedures for a vote of no confidence. I ask Members to note that the Constitution Committee in the other place has endorsed those two mechanisms for triggering an early election.

The Government do not accept the concern that the new right to dissolve Parliament will undermine this House’s exclusive cognisance. Such an important constitutional innovation absolutely should be laid down in statute, but we are confident that the courts will continue to regard matters certified by the Speaker as relating to proceedings in Parliament, which are, in turn, protected by the Bill of Rights. I was delighted that the Constitution Committee—a Committee that includes distinguished parliamentarians and lawyers—agreed with the Government’s assessment of the Bill’s interaction with parliamentary privilege.

On the length of Parliaments, we have looked into the suggestion that four years is preferable to five. It is true that this is not an exact science. It is a question of judgment, but, all the arguments considered, we remain of the strong view that five years, the current maximum and more recently the norm, will encourage the stability and long-term perspective that British politics too often lacks.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Can the Deputy Prime Minister give us one example in which he or another leading member of the Liberal Democrats before May last year was in favour of a five-year fixed-term Parliament?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

We were in favour of fixed-term Parliaments above and beyond all else, and always accepted that the issue of whether it was four years or five years was a matter of judgment, as I said. Five years, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is the maximum term available to us already, and of the last five Parliaments three stretched to five years, including the last Parliament under a Labour Government.

[Austin Mitchell]

But the judgment of the Liberal party was that four years was the appropriate length of a Parliament. That is what was in the Liberals’ manifesto and what they put up to the Labour side in the coalition negotiations. They asked for four years and election by single transferable vote. Why suddenly switch to five?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As I said, the principle of a fixed-term Parliament was by far the most important thing. Whether that is four or five years—some people argue for five, some argue for four—might divide opinion and might create synthetic objections from those on the Labour Benches, but it is none the less secondary to the principle of giving the House greater power over the Executive. That is what the Bill establishes. Personally, I would not fetishise about 12 months one way or another in a term of four or five years. We have decided in the coalition agreement and as a Government—[Interruption.] It is a decision from the Government. I know that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) finds it deeply uncomfortable not to be in government. He is not. We are, and we have decided five years.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

One of the consequences of the decision to have a five-year term in the first instance will be the coincidence of the date of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly elections in 2015. In the debate in Committee, we were advised by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) that there would be discussions with the devolved Administrations on that. Can the Deputy Prime Minister report to us now on the outcome of those discussions?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was present for my hon. Friend the Minister’s update to the House on Report, when he gave a full account of the ongoing discussions with the devolved Administrations and the Presiding Officers of the devolved Assemblies. I understand that people have different views on the coincidence of the two elections in 2015, but I hope the hon. Lady and everyone else will recognise that the Bill does not create the possibility of a clash of elections. Indeed, a clash in 2015 could easily have occurred under the existing arrangements if this Parliament had continued until 2015.

What the Bill does is alert us well ahead of time that there is going to be such a clash. It allows us to anticipate and plan for a date that coincides in that way. As it happens, such clashes will occur only every 20 years. The discussions that we are entering now with the devolved Assemblies, the Presiding Officers and the leaders of the devolved Executives are precisely to take advantage of the fact that we have advance warning of an overlap or a clash, which otherwise we would not have had.

[Naomi Long]

Although I accept the argument that parliamentary and Assembly elections could have coincided anyway, as might have happened in 2015, is this not a missed opportunity to take a constructive decision on whether such a coinciding is a good or bad thing so that we could then routinely avoid it or make it happen? Instead, it is again being left somewhat to chance.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I agree that in principle a clash of elections to the devolved Assemblies and to the House of Commons should be avoided. As I have said before in debates, there is a world of difference between the potential for confusion among voters being asked to vote for two different Parliaments that will in turn create two different Executives or Governments—a wholly more serious issue—and the coincidence of such elections with a referendum on a specific yes or no issue, as will be the case with the AV referendum and the elections this May. We have always accepted the fundamental assertion that we need to find a way around that. We have had ongoing discussions and will continue to do so with an open mind. We made the suggestion that the devolved Assemblies should have the power to shift the date of their elections by six months either before or after the general election. That has not been greeted with universal approbation, but it is none the less a sincere attempt on our part to try to find a way forward.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister, who is being generous in giving way. Can he confirm that the provision set out in clause 1(5) will extend the maximum length of a Parliament beyond five years and that therefore it would be the longest fixed-term Parliament in the world, other than Rwanda? There is no fixed-term Parliament in the world of five years.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman has read the provisions of the Bill correctly, and I think that his point was confirmed by the Minister on Report. On the point about the coincidence of elections, Northern Ireland Office Ministers are conducting separate discussions with the parties in Northern Ireland, where the issues are slightly different. It would be inappropriate for me to prejudge the outcome of those ongoing discussions. We will of course endeavour to keep colleagues on the Opposition Benches informed.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right that the judgment about how long a Parliament should last is not an exact science. During the debates in Committee, I opted for four years because I felt that that was more appropriate. It would avoid the clashes and mean that we would engage regularly with our electorate, which we should all be doing. It would be important in helping to keep us all in touch with our constituents. Would he say more on the thinking behind the decision to have five years rather than four?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As I said before, that is the existing maximum and has been for a very long time. It has recently become the norm, as five of the past nine Parliaments stretched to five years, including the previous Parliament. The hon. Gentleman might disagree, but I hope that he will at least accept the legitimacy of the argument that a four-year Parliament, politics being what it is, would naturally incline parties in power to look towards the next election well ahead of that four-year deadline and that government would be arrested and suspended as the party in power positioned itself months or sometimes a year or so before an impending general election, which would curtail considerably the time in which Governments can do difficult and brave things. Five years, however, is clearly a period during which Governments can take difficult and bold decisions that from time to time, as we very well know now, are necessary.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend was asked about clause 1(5) and the length of time between general elections, but my reading of that provision is that it does not extend the life of a Parliament. Parliament will still expire after five years, but the general election has to come within two months after that if it is extended, which is a shorter period than the current maximum.

[Chris Bryant]

That is not correct.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) on the theology of those things. The hon. Member for Rhondda says that he is wrong, but my understanding is that the Bill is fairly clear on that point, even if it a little opaque to me on that very specific point. As my hon. Friend knows, the provisions purely address highly exceptional circumstances that arise for one reason or another, such as unforeseen emergency circumstances. Foot and mouth is an obvious recent example of where it is self-evident that an election simply could not be conducted either practically or politically. That is what we had in mind when we drafted the Bill in those terms.

In conclusion, the Government believe that fixed-term Parliaments represent a simple but absolutely fundamental change: strengthening Parliament, providing stability and moving us towards the new politics that we have all promised the people of Britain. I commend the Bill to the House.

20:00

[Sadiq Khan]

Things are desperate when the Whips have to arrange things to get most of the Liberal parliamentary party into the Chamber, but it is good to see two rows of Liberal MPs. The Deputy Prime Minister knows more about mutinies than I do, but I suspect that the situation tonight is similar to that of a football club chairman who says to his manager, “Your job is safe.” I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman’s continued contribution to debates about constitutional reform.

The Bill before us allows the Government to set in stone the date of the next general election as Thursday 7 May 2015. It also gives them time to foist a series of constitutional changes on to the country. They will reduce the size of the House of Commons by 50 MPs, redraw constituency boundaries and silence the voices of local residents through the removal of public inquiries. This Bill allows them the time to do that, and as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who is not in his place, said on Second Reading, it smacks of

“gerrymandering the constitution in favour of a particular coalition”.—[Official Report, 13 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 624.]

[Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to suggest that, by the Prime Minister giving up power and by making the votes of people in Corby equal to the votes of people in the Rhondda, we are gerrymandering in the Bill? That is an amazing use of language.

[Sadiq Khan]

That Bill is being discussed in the other place. It starts again at 3.30 tomorrow.

The hon. Lady should be interested in my next point, however, because the Bill before us also ties the hands of the Conservative party to the Liberal Democrats. With this Bill, their respective fates and identities become inseparable. Make no mistake: the Bill is not for the good of the country; it is for the good of the Ministers on the Treasury Bench. What compounds that outrageous piece of attempted constitutional fixing is the fact they are trying to ram it through at breakneck speed. That urgency is because Back Benchers from both coalition parties are having second thoughts about the issue, so party managers need to get them super-glued together quickly, with no way out.

Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have raised a number of concerns about its content and its scrutiny. I have no problem with the Conservative party being converts to fixed-term Parliaments.

[Mr Heath]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sadiq Khan]

No, I will not. Not to you.

The Liberal Democrats’ policy was for four-year fixed-term Parliaments, but unfortunately the coalition has hijacked a sensible and progressive idea, amended it for its own means and tried to rush through legislation preventing a proper, wide-ranging debate on an important —[Hon. Members: “Give way!”] I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has been in charge of timetabling the Bill, and if he had wanted to speak, he should have allowed more time for debate.

Once again, we will rely on the other place to inject a sense of fairness—

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the right hon. Gentleman had intended to take up the first two minutes of his speech himself, one might have understood his response. If he intends to let others come in, however, why does he not let the Minister have a word?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

The hon. Gentleman is very experienced and knows that that is not a point of order. It is entirely up to Mr Khan as to whom he decides to give way to. While I am on my feet, may I remind Members that there is supposed to be only one Member on their feet at any one time in the Chamber?

[Sadiq Khan]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the debate and congratulate him on his recent honour.

I want to be clear that the criticism of the speed with which the legislation is being pushed through comes not from us alone. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the Clerk of the House of Commons, Professor Robert Hazell of the constitution unit and other academic experts, and the House of Lords Constitution Committee have all criticised not only the Bill, but the way in which it is being rushed through without consideration for the consequences on our constitution, both intended and unintended.

May I deal with an important point at the outset? It has been said that the Bill needs to go through unchanged because it is part of the coalition agreement. The new politics means that we can forget about what people voted for, about manifestos and about the promises that were made before the election. The deal that was done means that the agreement that was reached after the election cannot be touched. However, the Bill no longer provides for a general election if 55% of hon. Members believe that one is needed, as was stated in the coalition agreement. The Deputy Prime Minister made an embarrassing U-turn on that issue, proving that the coalition agreement has no constitutional significance at all. I hope that the other place will pay heed to that.

Our major concern from the beginning has been that five years is simply too long for a fixed-term Parliament. We have argued throughout the scrutiny process for four-year terms. That not only compares well with other Parliaments, but provides a better fit with our current constitutional arrangements. Moreover, we have heard the concerns of our colleagues in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland about the short-term consequences of fixing Parliaments at five years. The potential clash with the Assembly elections in Wales and Northern Ireland and the parliamentary election in Scotland on 7 May 2015 shows a blatant disregard for those parts of the Union.

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

The right hon. Gentleman is keen to ascribe motives that were not present in the decision to make it five years. Will he give some indication of the thinking of the previous Prime Minister in deciding that the Parliament that has just ended should last five years?

[Sadiq Khan]

The right hon. Gentleman will accept that, like his party, we were in favour of fixed-term Parliaments and that, like his party, we thought four years was the appropriate length of time. In between the ballot boxes closing and Liberal Democrats reaching their ministerial cars, his party changed the figure to five years for the simple reason that it meant that it could gerrymander before the next general election.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the House how he voted on the Fixed Term Parliaments Bill introduced by my predecessor, David Howarth?

[Sadiq Khan]

The hon. Gentleman should explain why he has changed his mind in relation to his predecessor’s Bill. He will recall that there was insufficient time to allow the Bill introduced by his predecessor—a very good and honourable man—to receive proper debate in the House of Commons. The question that should be asked is why the hon. Gentleman has done a U-turn on that Bill. [Interruption.] The Whip, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), heckles me but if he wants to get to his feet, I am happy to take an intervention.

This sort of Westminster arrogance will not go down well in Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh. People in those places will remember the arrogant way in which the Deputy Prime Minister’s deputy, after a number of hours of debate on this issue on day one of the Committee, and after a number of Members had spoken, pulled from his pocket an option to allow devolved Assembly elections to be brought forward by up to six months in the event of their being scheduled at the same time as a general election. There was no consultation and no discussion with us or the devolved Administrations before that. We have heard how unhappy they are with this.

[Mr Harper]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sadiq Khan]

Of course I will give way.

[Mr Harper]

The right hon. Gentleman knows, as I made clear at the time, that I announced that option in this House first because I thought it proper for Parliament to hear it first. I then wrote to all the party leaders. During the process, I have kept him informed, have placed copies of the correspondence in the House of Commons and have updated the House. At all stages, I have kept this House informed, as is the proper process.

[Sadiq Khan]

I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to intervene again. Is it not right that a number of colleagues had taken part in the debate and an amendment had been moved, and that it was only towards the end of the evening that he pulled the option out of his pocket?

[Mr Harper]

I was very keen to do something that the previous Government did not do often: I listened to the debate and to the concerns raised by Members on both sides of the Committee, and then announced to the House what I thought might be a sensible move forward. As I said on Report, colleagues in the devolved Parliament and Assemblies have written back to me to say that they are less than overwhelmed by my proposals. That is why we did not move them on Report. That was a perfectly sensible way to conduct matters.

[Sadiq Khan]

The problem is that an amendment was moved, hon. Members took part in the debate, and then the Minister introduced the other option, yet gave us no chance to respond, because of the guillotining by those on the Government Front Bench.

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

Surely the point is that the Minister knew that information at the start of the debate, but he chose not to inform Members House at that stage.

[Sadiq Khan]

My hon. Friend makes the point well.

More recently, and more importantly for this House, our concerns about the length of the Parliament have been strengthened since the Bill was in Committee by the Lords Constitution Committee. In his short contribution, the Deputy Prime Minister cherry-picked parts of its report, but he missed out the most crucial bit. In the Constitution Committee’s view, five years is simply too long. Like us, it argues that four years is more appropriate. Its report challenged the Deputy Prime Minister’s assertions that the Government’s progress on constitutional and political reform, of which the Bill is a key component, will make Parliament more accountable to the people. The Constitution Committee argues that the provisions in the Bill to fix the length of Parliaments to five years would lead to less frequent elections and make the legislature less accountable, not more. Under a system of fixed five-year terms, there would have been four fewer elections since 1945.

I know the pressure that will be brought to bear on Government Members to support the Bill—a Bill that they do not believe in and that they have a problem with. However, when they come to decide whether to give it a Third Reading, they should remember the words of the Lords Constitution Committee, which said that a five-year term was

“inconsistent with the Government’s stated aim of making the legislature more accountable, inconsistent with existing constitutional practice and inconsistent with the practice of the devolved institutions and the clear majority of international legislatures”—

except in Rwanda. If the Bill goes through this House, the Opposition will be looking to the Lords to heed the advice of their own Constitution Committee and recognise that four years is a much more sensible length of time for a fixed-term Parliament.

Time is short, so I will not go into the other problems that we have with the Bill. However, what I will say, and for the second time in a number of months, is that I am optimistic and sincerely hopeful that the other place will inject some sanity into this Bill, through proper scrutiny. This Bill is rushed, self-serving and opportunistic. It is an affront to how we ought to go about amending and improving our constitution. We shall be voting against it being given a Third Reading.

21:37

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I have no rancour against the coalition. I think that it is doing some wonderful things: in deficit reduction, welfare reform and education. We are lucky to have two very fine young men at the head of this coalition—they know who they are, and they do not need to be named. However, I feel that they have got this one wrong. This Bill is a mistake. We have had 350 years of settled parliamentary democracy. We have had no despots ruling—and ruining—this country. We have a great deal to be proud of. I have listened to the arguments closely from the outset. I voted against the Bill on Second Reading, and I had hoped to be persuaded in the intervening weeks that somehow I was wrong and that many of my colleagues were right. However, I am afraid that I was right and they are wrong. This remains an extremely bad Bill.

Some wonderful arguments have been put forward. We have been told that the British public do not like general elections—that we must have fewer of them; that the last thing that my constituents want is a general election every three or four years, because they are so bored of them. However, in the same breath, we are told that we should have elections for mayors and police commissioners; and yet somehow, the most important election of all—a general election—is relegated to something that we would rather not have, and if we must have them, we should have them every five years.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

My constituents cannot wait for the next general election.

[Mr Walker]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be standing for his constituency at the next general election and that the reason his constituents cannot wait is that they want once again to affirm his brilliance.

We have had 350 years of settled parliamentary democracy, and we are now turning our backs on that a little hastily. Of course, we can draw on the European model. Europe is a great place—I think it is absolutely wonderful—but there is not a great deal that it can teach us about democracy. Democracy is an innovation across most of Europe, arriving in 1945 and 1946 in some places, and in the late 1990s in others. So, although many good things are happening in Europe, our parliamentary democracy is something that we should be proud of.

I do not want to stray outside the bounds of this Third Reading debate, so I shall conclude my remarks by saying that I think this coalition is going to last for five years. It is led by two honourable and right hon. Gentlemen, and if they want it to last for five years, they will take their parliamentary parties with them. But it should not be the duty of Parliament to do the heavy lifting for the coalition. That is the duty of the coalition partners. The Bill is a grave mistake, and I am afraid that there is only one thing I can do from now on: I must work tirelessly for the rest of my parliamentary career to become Prime Minister so that I can do away with what I regard as this rather dangerous piece of nonsense.

21:40

[Tristram Hunt]

I am grateful that we have been allowed to discuss the Bill. Today’s debate has been awash with the abuse of peers at the other end of the Palace who have simply being doing their job of scrutinising Government legislation. We should not omit the vital role of the newly ennobled Lord Fellowes in that act of scrutiny, whose contribution was, we are told, to give an hour-long talk in an upstairs room entitled “A life on stage and screen”. Such are the indignities of packing the second Chamber.

I wish to focus on the length of the fixed-term Parliament. We have seen, in the actions of the Government in relation to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, that what drives them is not the good of the nation but the good of the coalition—or the Tory-led Government, as we like to call them. They are always at pains to ensure that the yin and yang of the coalition are in perfect harmony, so, rather than giving people the chance to put away the notion of the alternative vote on 5 May, they are demanding to keep the two parts of the Bill together to keep the coalition happy. And so it is with this Bill. It proposes a Parliament of five years, not four years, because that is what the coalition, not the nation, needs.

Professor Robert Blackburn, of King’s college, London, put it well when he said:

“It is likely that the Coalition’s concern with concretising its political alliance and having the longest period possible in which to implement its tax increases and cuts in public expenditure and then recover sufficient popularity in time for its next meeting with the electorate, has affected its judgement in this matter. In my view, the period between general elections should clearly be four years”.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I do not understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument. If the coalition’s motive had simply been to postpone an election for five years in order to have more time to sort the country out, that could have been achieved by prime ministerial decision. What the Bill does is to ensure that the next Government, and the one after that and the one after that, will be subject to these provisions. Perhaps, some day, the hon. Gentleman’s party will recover enough to form such a Government.

[Tristram Hunt]

Coalition Members really do not understand the difference between the norm and the maximum. We have had this problem with them over many weeks now. The issue is whether we want to move from the norm to the maximum. Across the academic and political communities, we can see—if we look at the work of Robert Hazell, for example—that four years are preferred to five. The view of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee—on which I am happy to serve with the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart)—was that most opinion suggests that it would be better for general elections to be held every four years, rather than every five.

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that fixing the term at five years automatically favours the Government of the day, whereas it can of course have the opposite effect. Does he agree with me, as did some of the witnesses who appeared before our Committee, that by tying themselves into a five-year fixed term, the Government might find that the election coincides with a rather dismal period in the opinion polls, giving great advantage to the Opposition? I thought that that evidence was given to the Select Committee—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but his intervention is getting rather long.

[Tristram Hunt]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but the benefits of a fixed-term schedule outweigh those potential risks. I regard four years as within the rhythm of this country, as it is within the rhythm of other European as well as Westminster-style democracies— Canada, Denmark, the American presidential term, Germany, Sweden. The change to five years is for the good of the coalition, not the nation.

The Deputy Prime Minister referred to and quoted the Chartists again in today’s Question Time, but the Chartists believed in annual Parliaments, not in extending the term to five years. As we have heard, the Liberal Democrats used to believe in four-year terms—before the allure of office moved them to change their minds. May I suggest that the coalition listen to a real coalition leader, the late Herbert Asquith? On introducing his own cut to the parliamentary term, he spoke of securing a House of Commons that is

“always either fresh from the polls which it gave it authority, or—and this is an equally effective check upon acting in defiance of the popular will—it is looking forward to the polls at which it will have to render an account of its stewardship.”—[Official Report, 21 February 1911; Vol. XXI, c. 1749.]

That seems to be the perfect combination. I will move on quickly, as others wish to speak.

I do not feel that the Government have dealt with the problem of exclusive cognisance very effectively, so it still poses the danger of judicial interference. This Bill fits all too neatly into the Government’s overarching constitutional reform strategy: coalition first, country second. Whether it be packing the House of Lords, increasing the number of Ministers by 10%, undermining the Union by slashing 25% of constituencies in Wales, or overriding historic or geographic settlements in new parliamentary boundaries, it is Clegg and Cameron first, country second. That is the abiding weakness of coalition Government. The tragedy is that if this Bill is passed, we will have five years of it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are fewer than 14 minutes to go and four Members are seeking to catch my eye. Members can do the arithmetic for themselves, so some regard for each other’s interests would be appreciated.

21:47

[Simon Hart]

I start by thanking the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for early warning of his visit to my constituency next week. I extend the invitation to him; if he does not find the speech to the Labour group in Tenby going as well as he would like, he is always very welcome in my house, as he well knows.

Ministers are well aware that of all the constitutional measures going through Parliament, I find this one to be undoubtedly the most attractive. I have to say that I have found it ever more attractive as the debates have played out. One reason is that Wales provides a living example of fixed-term Parliaments. If my voters and electors are anything to go by, there is a very relaxed attitude towards whether it will be four or five years before they are asked to go to the polls.

There seems to be an increasing amount of synthetic frustration being expressed—not by all Members, but by some Opposition Members—about the potential economic, social, cultural and constitutional damage that can be done by this measure. If the experience of Wales is anything to go by, that is a very long way from the truth. The public are completely relaxed about whether they are required to follow the pattern adopted by the Welsh Assembly or the proposal before us tonight.

I referred in an earlier intervention—on the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), if my memory serves me right—to witnesses appearing before the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. Although there was a general tendency for those witnesses to err in favour of a four-year fixed term, there was certainly no significant alarm bell sounded about a five-year fixed term. Simply citing a number of other examples across Europe and the rest of the world in an attempt to suggest that this would have devastating effects in the UK simply does not wash. There are plenty of examples in the UK—Wales is one of them—to confirm that.

The argument I have heard repeated over and over again by the shadow Minister and others is that this measure will result in our having the longest fixed-term Parliament ever, to which I say, “So what?” If the public and my electors, in common with electors further afield in Wales and elsewhere, are as content as they seem to be, so what? If it results in settled and sound government, we should have nothing to fear from it.

Let me end my brief speech by saying that we have heard no evidence, either in the Select Committee or during today’s debate, to suggest that a five-year fixed term would pose any constitutional, economic, social or any other dangers that need trouble the House or, much more importantly, the voters who put us here.

21:50

[Austin Mitchell]

It was interesting to hear the Deputy Prime Minister present as a great constitutional innovation what is in fact a sordid little Bill, which is intended to keep the coalition clinging together for five years in the hope that that will be long enough for the Liberal Democrats to extract some concessions from the Conservatives as a reward for joining the coalition.

Sadly, this brings to mind an image from the Brazil floods that many of us saw on television last week. A poor lady was on the roof of her house clutching a dog—the poor lady representing the Conservative party, and the dog representing the Liberal Democrats. The lady was being winched up by a helicopter, while the dog was being washed away. That is the end of the story. The woman was saved, as the Conservative party will be by this measure, but the Liberal Democrat dog was washed away into the waters.

The Opposition have tried to amend and improve the Bill. We have tried to remove some of its faults. In particular, we have tried to reduce the term involved, or rather to prevent a five-year term from becoming the norm—for although the Deputy Prime Minister has described five years as the norm, it is not; it is the exception.

It has been said that this is a genius of a Bill because it prevents Prime Ministers from manipulating the economy, or manipulating politics, in order to be returned to office. That happened in the 1950s and 1960s, at a time when Prime Ministers could manipulate the economy. Now the economy manipulates Prime Ministers. When we examine the record of past Prime Ministers, it is interesting to note how many of them made timing mistakes that lost them elections. Let me list them. Wilson in 1970: mistaken timing. Heath in 1974: mistaken timing. It was either three weeks too late or three months too early. Callaghan in 1979: mistaken timing. He should have gone for it in 1978. Then there was one called Brown who should have gone for it in 2007, but, as was mentioned earlier, he made the mistake of outstaying his welcome.

That is what the coalition will do by extending the length of this Parliament. The fact is that the people want us to be kept on a shorter leash, and shorter Parliaments provide the most effective way of ensuring that that happens. They ensure that we remain accountable, that we present ourselves to the electorate, and that we are open to re-election. I think that a three-year Parliament, like that adopted by Australia and New Zealand, would be far more sensible, and would accord more with the public mood. [Interruption.] Forget 1984; I have already.

Let me end—because I want to be brief—by saying that the Bill is an attempt to keep the coalition in power through manipulation. I think that the coalition will find in five years that by trying to stay in power and by manipulating the electoral system through the loss of 50 Members—which the Deputy Prime Minister presumably thinks will weaken the Executive—it has outstayed its welcome. That is certainly what happened to us—and indeed, the coalition has outstayed its welcome already.

21:53

[Andrew Percy]

I do not intend to detain the House too long. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) made many of the points that I would otherwise have made. He also launched a bid for the leadership of the Conservative party. I do not intend to emulate him in that regard; indeed, I do not think that I would be able to secure the necessary nominations.

I voted against the Bill on Second Reading, but I have absolutely no problems with the coalition. In fact, I have a great deal of regard for my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. I have always respected him as a politician, although during the leadership debates my emotions were a bit more up and down in terms of his performance. I do not suggest for a moment that the aim of the Bill is to prop up the coalition. However, I think that the decision to adopt fixed five-year terms is wrong.

As I said in Committee, I think that one of our biggest problems following the expenses scandal and all that surrounded it is a disengagement with politics. I believe that a four-year term is more natural. It is the term to which we expect local councillors to adhere, as well as representatives in the devolved Parliament and Assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I fail to understand why the arguments as to why a councillor or MSP should serve for four years do not also apply to a Member of Parliament. Indeed, I am actually quite keen to get back to my electorate. When politicians have a five-year term, there is a temptation for them to take their foot off the pedal in the work they do in their constituency. I hope not to do that; I hope still to be working as hard in two years’ time as now. A four-year cycle is, however, a more natural political term, and I am very enthusiastic about engaging with my electorate as often as possible—so long as they make the right choice.

I also have a slight concern about the mechanism in the Bill for how an election is called. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne that hundreds of years of parliamentary history suggest that we have not in the past had a particular problem with that, so I do not understand why we are putting this convoluted system in place. Frankly however, it is not an issue that taxes many of my constituents. Their concern is that they get an election when the time is right.

I think everybody accepts that most of the terms that have run to five years have not, by any stretch of the imagination, been in the best interests of the country. I would not want us to end up with long Parliaments, with the public becoming increasingly disengaged and angry as we head towards a general election.

If we move to the alternative vote we could end up with a strange system. Candidates who have come second in their constituency but who still manage to get elected might represent a third party, and they might then determine whether we had a general election even though they had come second. Whichever party they might represent, I do not think allowing a party to switch sides midway through a Parliament and change the Government without going back to the people is at all desirable.

I will not detain the House any longer, as I know that one more Member wishes to speak. I opposed the Bill on Second Reading, and I will not support it if there is a Division on Third Reading, because I genuinely believe a four-year term is far more appropriate than five years.

21:57

[Mark Durkan]

Those of us who have been through all the stages of this Bill, including the Committee stage and the Report stage tonight, were delighted to see the Deputy Prime Minister join us. The same thing happened during proceedings on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill; the Deputy Prime Minister came in like Janet Webb at the end, pushing out the two comedians who had run the show, to make the valedictory statements.

Many of us have no issue with the principle of a fixed-term Parliament. We support that, but we do have serious questions about details of the Bill, and how it interacts with the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. That other Bill is the real reason why the parliamentary term is being set at five years: that Bill fixes that the boundaries will be fixed every five years for each Parliament, which is what has necessitated the five-year fixed term in this Bill—it is because of that fix, and there is no point anybody denying that.

The Deputy Prime Minister and the Government have brought this Bill about in a way that has shown a complete disregard for the interests of the devolved institutions, as they also did with that other Bill. That reckless disregard almost has the air of a joyrider about it. The Deputy Prime Minister needs to recognise that the day will come when he will regret the premature miscalculation that has been involved in both these Bills. They will not hold the coalition together. As we have seen in the experience of Irish coalition politics on so many occasions, there comes a point in the life of a coalition when people look to get out of it.

The Deputy Leader of the House said earlier that this Bill will prevent any snap election in future. It will do no such thing. The device for a motion of no confidence is not unusable. It is not the case that nobody is ever going to use it; it will be used. Many of us have been through the experience in politics where the unthinkable has happened, because that is the device people had available to them. I have belonged to a system where a resignation that took place was then deemed not to have taken place at all. I have been present when judgments that were meant to be made by a Secretary of State, under the law, to select a date were then completely undone. I have served with people who, on being elected to office, immediately had letters of resignation in their pockets, simply because that was the device that could be used. People will do the absurd. In politics, as in so many other things, when the imperative comes for divorce, divorce will take place. People will not say, “We are not going for it because we will have to go through temporary embarrassment or we will take some of the blame.” That is what people will do, and the Liberal Democrats will find themselves caught in that situation, with the Tories and Labour happily ending this Parliament prematurely.

21:59

Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 13 September).

The Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the Bill be now read the Third time.

22:00

Division 175

Ayes: 320

---

Conservative: 261
Liberal Democrat: 50
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 234

---

Labour: 217
Conservative: 6
Scottish National Party: 6
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Independent: 1

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

European union documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

citizens’ initiative

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 8399/10 and Addendum relating to the draft European Citizens’ Initiative Regulation, on which political agreement was reached by Council and Parliament at First Reading in December 2010; and supports the Government’s intention to develop a mechanism to implement the Citizens’ Initiative which encourages citizen engagement while minimising the burden on Member States.—(Mr. Newmark.)

Question agreed to.

petitions

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

22:15

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

On behalf of my constituents I present this petition from the staff and students of Swallow Hill community college in the Leeds West constituency.

The Petition of students and staff of Swallow Hill Community College, and others,

Declares that the Petitioners oppose the abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance; and further declares that the Petitioners oppose the Government's decision to raise Higher Education tuition fees.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse its decisions to abolish the Education Maintenance Allowance and to raise Higher Education tuition fees.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000879]

22:16

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

Seventy per cent. of the young people in City of Sunderland college are in receipt of the education maintenance allowance. Ninety per cent. of those receive the full £30.

The Petition of residents of Sunderland and the surrounding area,

Declares that the Petitioners oppose the abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance; and notes that education can provide a better future for young people.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government not to abolish the Education Maintenance Allowance.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000880]

West Midlands Police

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr. Newmark.)

22:17

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

Thank you for granting this Adjournment debate, Mr Speaker. This is my third encounter today with the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice. I assure him that I am not tiring of it, even if he might be getting a little fed up with the sight of me. I am glad that a number of colleagues have stayed for the Adjournment debate, which shows their concern about this issue.

Alongside many of my west midlands colleagues, I have spent quite a bit of time recently discussing the likely effects of cuts and reductions in policing. We have talked with the Minister, shadow Ministers, police officers of various ranks, members of the police authority and other key stakeholders. We all know that reductions in police funding are going to be at their worst in places such as the west midlands, and that there may well be consequences that have so far been overlooked.

Inevitably, talk of police cuts leads to discussions about the risks of rising crime and arguments over how the police use their time. Depending on the audience, it is not uncommon for young people to figure in the discussions, as if they are a major cause of crime and antisocial behaviour and the entire nature of their relationship with the police is one of conflict. I do not accept that—hence tonight’s debate. It is easy to forget that the police are often the first port of call for worried parents when youngsters go missing or run away from home, when youngsters fall into bad company or when parents feel they are losing control. In my constituency of Selly Oak, it is common to see the police playing an active role in working in schools and youth clubs. They take a very hands-on approach.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that school-based police officers are crucial and make a huge difference that is noted by parents, teachers and local residents and, in particular, by students themselves? He might be interested to know that I was lobbied last week by year 7 and 9 pupils from Small Heath school in my constituency—incidentally, it is my former school. They were lamenting the loss of their local police constable, PC Inglis, who had been based at their school for a number of years and had made such an impact on the students and on antisocial behaviour, the rates of which had declined significantly.

[Steve McCabe]

I agree with my hon. Friend. At Highters Heath school, it is not unusual to see officers taking part in lessons or accompanying children on school trips. That is part of a project developed by the head teacher, Jan Connor, in conjunction with her local police inspector and sergeant. They recognised that contact with the police had to be about more than warnings, inquiries or witnessing arrests, so they set out to break down the barriers and build a long-term relationship with the community. That is important, but it will be hard to measure when the accountants want to balance the books. As with my hon. Friend, the young people and constituents whom I speak to tell me that it is making a difference.

I often get complaints from constituents about antisocial behaviour on the Chinn Brook recreation ground, especially during the lighter nights. The solution in the old-fashioned, vehicle-led reactive policing days might have been to send out a car and issue a few warnings or round up the loudest. That does not really solve the problem and risks alienating young people from the police.

Last summer, I attended a barbecue organised by a local inspector and a sergeant and her team. They sent invitations to families across the area. They made it clear that the recreation ground could be used for fun and family events, but that it had to be shared and the needs of others respected. They worked hard to sign up every youngster who attended for a sports challenge or some other activity to keep them busy on summer nights. That is the kind of policing that my constituents want, and it is the kind of policing that pays dividends with young people.

West Midlands police have been one of the pioneers of a return to what is sometimes called autonomous or common-sense policing, whereby the police set out to resolve community conflicts, antisocial behaviour and sometimes intergenerational tensions by using their guile and common sense, rather than boosting their arrest figures. Using that kind of policing, minor vandalism can be dealt with by perpetrators putting right the damage, or a punch-up in the school playground not automatically being recorded as an assault. For me, that is the foundation of neighbourhood policing.

Many years ago, when I worked with young offenders, I can well remember the juvenile court packed with cases that might have been dealt with differently with a bit more common sense and desire for a just solution. That is why I am anxious to protect this model of policing. I am not alone in that view. More than 600 of my constituents have been in touch with me to express their anxieties about what might happen if there is a huge reduction in officers and less time for community engagement.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that what he is referring to is replicated in a great many places across the United Kingdom, including in my constituency. It involves community policing, new ideas—sometimes, midnight football—and flexibility with children. It does not necessarily apply the rule of law and use prosecution, but it shows how we work with them and take them away from the attractions that sometimes lead them astray.

[Steve McCabe]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is right that the police should try to forge links with those young people whom we sometimes describe as “hard to reach”. The police should work with charities, voluntary groups and youth groups to help young people to feel safe and to enjoy themselves, while remembering to respect the needs of others. That is as important for front-line visibility as anything else that Sir Denis O’Connor might comment on.

We can argue another time about the intensity of the Government cuts and whether their scale and timing are right. For the purposes of this debate, however, I simply want to highlight my fears about some of their unintended consequences. Birmingham council’s antisocial behaviour unit will be a victim of the cuts. It will lose most of its staff and might have to close. Although I have not necessarily agreed with its approach on everything, I recognise that its trailblazing work is designed to prevent the growth and persistence of the antisocial behaviour that wrecks communities and destroys lives. In 2010, the unit was able to work with the police on a spate of gang-related activities, as well as the identification and closure of premises that were being used as brothels in a dark world where young women are often lured into a life of depravity and despair. The police have worked with local charities to create safe havens to help to take youngsters off the streets and to develop opportunities for the police and others to work with them constructively. We have one safe haven in the Quinton area of south Birmingham. The police officers I speak to are positive about the value of that work. They intend to create a network of havens, but now we might be fighting to prevent the closure of the one that already exists.

In some parts of Birmingham, the authorities have made good use of money available from pots such as the working neighbourhoods fund and safer city partnerships. They use that funding with the police to tackle antisocial behaviour, to reduce gang activity and to act on neighbourhood tensions and intergenerational conflicts. Bodies such as the centre for conflict resolution have been part of that, but what is their future as their partners find their budgets slashed?

At least three youth groups in Selly Oak are expressing concern that the work they do with the police is at risk. The 641 group might have to close, and the Den and St Mary’s youth group are also in a precarious position. Yesterday, I received quite a sad letter from two young men in my constituency—Kieran Greenway and Tom O’Rielly—who wanted me to know that they had started a petition to try to stop the closure of their youth club: Masefield youth club. They feel that the club is teaching them about co-operation and teamwork. It is providing assistance in their search for work or training opportunities, which is no mean task for a young person in Birmingham at the moment. The club encourages them to look at their own behaviour. It helps to divert them from trouble and from being blamed for causing trouble. It also reduces the chance that they might be drawn into acts of vandalism or exposed to violence and drugs, or that they might develop relationships with the police that are wholly hostile and confrontational. They want to keep their club in their area because they do not have to travel far to get there and, as a result, they are less likely to be exposed to street crime. Violence and robbery are real problems for many young people these days, and those under 25 are much more likely to be victims than perpetrators.

For a big city, Birmingham does not do that well in youth provision, although I pay tribute to the countless dedicated individuals who give up their time to help and support our young people. They are part of the Prime Minister’s big society, but they are fighting a very tough battle and they increasingly think that the little support that does exist is being steadily removed.

Birmingham city council’s own overview and scrutiny committee recommended in its November 2006 report that decent youth services required an average spend of £100 to £110 per youngster per year. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), the spend is about £60. In Selly Oak, it is about £45, and in the constituency of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), it is about £30.

Our young people are already being short-changed. They need people to advise them on the dangers of smoking and to provide honest advice on relationships and sexual behaviour. They need to know about the risks of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. They need places to go where they can feel safe and form relationships with adults that are not destructive and exploitative. The police play a crucial role in supporting many of those services. We should not overlook the superb work they do in partnership with others.

Police cuts do not affect only the elderly, home owners and businesses, all of whom have reason to fear the scale of cuts in the west midlands. They also affect youngsters who deserve the chance to develop decent relations with the police, who need access to challenging activities to absorb their energy and exuberance, who come from violent homes or who have no home, and who want to feel safe and deserve a chance like everyone else. Now is not the time to reduce support for young people. Future generations deserve better from us.

I am sure that that is what the right hon. Member for Havant (Mr Willetts), now Minister for Universities and Science, had in mind when he talked in his excellent book “The Pinch” about the contract across generations and the responsibilities of the baby boomer generation to the subsequent generation. We need to recognise the important role that the police can play and not treat our young people as voiceless individuals—those without a vote who can be left at the bottom of the pecking order when these cuts are imposed.

22:32

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on securing the debate. I am delighted to be discussing these issues with him once again—I think for the third time today. I have also met him to discuss the funding of West Midlands police, and I know that he speaks with genuine concern, passion and interest about the subject, which is also motivated by the interests of his constituents and by wanting the best possible police service in his constituency and more widely in the west midlands. That is an ambition that the Government share. It is the first duty of the Government—of any Government—to ensure that the public are safe, and it is important to us all that we have an efficient and effective police service. However, the Government also have to deal with the deficit. The hon. Gentleman recognised that in his comments. We can disagree about the pace at which the deficit is being dealt with, but Government Members argue that it is essential that it is dealt with as fast as we are proposing.

Nevertheless, I think that both sides agree that the police would have to make savings irrespective of how fast that deficit was reduced, and there is indeed agreement on both sides that the police can make substantial savings, so what we have is a discussion about the scale of those savings and how they can be delivered in a way that does not affect or damage the service that people are entitled to expect in their homes, in their workplace and on the streets. I believe that it will be possible for police forces across the country, including the West Midlands police, to restructure, make savings and drive down costs in a way that will enable them to deal with the reductions in grant that we have had to announce, without producing a service that is worse for the public. We are asking the police to make savings to meet a challenging funding settlement. We have always said that it would be challenging; it was announced in the spending review that the central Government grant to police forces is reducing by 20% in real terms over four years.

Not every force is affected in the same way, because the amount of resource that is available to forces depends on how much they raise from council tax payers. Every force raises some money from council tax payers. On average, that is about a quarter of the funding that they receive, so it is a highly significant share. The West Midlands force receives the second lowest amount from the council tax payer, a point that has been well made by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. That means that the 20% reduction in real terms is more challenging for West Midlands than for other forces.

As I explained to the Home Affairs Committee today, we looked closely at whether it would be right or possible to adjust the grant reduction to take into account the fact that some forces, such as the West Midlands force, raise less from their precept, but there were a number of objections to that. One is that by doing so, we would be penalising council tax payers in other areas who already pay far more for their policing services and have had a big increase in council tax over previous years. That would be unfair. Also, by subsidising forces, including large forces such as West Midlands, in that way, we would be asking other forces to take a larger cut in central grant than 20%. They would have regarded that as very unfair.

It seems right and fair to treat all forces in the same way and ask that they deal with a 20% reduction in real terms. The implications of that are not the same in cash terms. The cash reduction for forces in the first year is 5.1%. In the second year it is 6.7% on average. Taking account of the specific grants that are added, the average reduction is 4% in the first year, 5% in the second, 2% in the third and 1% in the fourth. Those are cash figures and do not take into account inflation, but they illustrate the fact that although these are challenging reductions, they are manageable, provided that considerable savings can be achieved.

Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary says that forces together can save more than £1 billion a year—that is some 12% of their funding from central Government—while protecting front-line services. They can achieve that by redesigning their services, and specifically by making changes in their back and middle offices, including by outsourcing. That has happened to differing degrees across forces, but the West Midlands police are now looking at such a radical service redesign.

I met the chief constable again today. Indeed, I have just been with him, discussing these very issues. The kinds of project that the force is considering are those that would save large sums of money as it attempts to meet the budget reductions, but I do not believe that those changes would mean a reduction in service that would be felt by the public.

The Government have never been able to give a guarantee about police numbers, and nor were the previous Government. We recognise that police forces are having to institute a recruitment freeze and that some forces, including West Midlands police, are using the A19 procedure so that police officers who have reached 30 years of service retire. There will be reductions in the size of police work forces, and that is true for West Midlands police. However, that is not the same as saying that there will necessarily be a reduction in the quality of service for the public. The task for chief constables and their managers in the police force, supported by their policy authorities and the Government, is to find ways to drive the kind of service redesign that will mean that the public still see their police officers on the streets and still receive a good response from them and that the police are still able to engage in the kind of partnership activity that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, which is so important in dealing with youth crime.

In addition to the savings that the inspectorate of constabulary identified, we believe that further savings could be made by police forces. I rehearsed some of those briefly with the Home Affairs Committee today and will be happy to do so again. For instance, we think that procurement of non-IT goods and services could save another £200 million a year, bearing in mind that police authorities currently spend £2.8 billion a year on equipment, goods and services. We also think that savings from IT will be possible if police forces collaborate. We have a new approach to procuring and managing IT. There are 2,000 IT systems between the 43 forces, employing around 5,000 staff. The general view in the service is that savings will be possible by managing that better, and the Government are determined to help drive that.

Furthermore, we have set up an independent review of pay and conditions under Tom Winsor, the former rail regulator, and it will produce its first report shortly. That will advise us on the right and proper balance between pay and conditions and whether we have the right arrangements in relation, for instance, to overtime, special priority payments and such matters. That will enable us to ensure that we have an affordable service, but also one that fairly remunerates officers, who do such an important job, recognising that they cannot strike and that many do a difficult and often dangerous job. We await Tom Winsor’s report and will then advise on our position. Any changes that might be made, including the possibility of a two-year pay freeze, which would also save significant sums of money for police forces and which we expect the rest of the public sector to undergo, would have to be agreed by the police negotiating board.

Despite the fact that we expect the overall size of the police work force to be reduced, including in the west midlands, we are absolutely determined to protect front-line services.

[Steve McCabe]

I recognise the difficult job that the Minister has. Does he have any plans to issue guidance or advice to the police on the significance of young people when considering their budgets? That group cannot vote and does not have a voice in the same way as adults, and that is part of the purpose of raising the matter.

[Nick Herbert]

I was going to move on to young people. I have no specific plans to issue that kind of guidance, partly because I do not think that I need to persuade chief officers or police forces about the importance of such work. They know that the significant investment that has been made in the development of neighbourhood policing and the growth of partnership working, whereby police officers are engaged with local authorities in crime reduction measures, particularly those affecting young people, has been a really important move. It has helped to reduce crime and to build public confidence, and my understanding is that chief officers, including Chris Sims, the chief constable of West Midlands police, are committed to it.

We need to send a message to local authorities. They of course face equally challenging reductions in funding, but, as they too have to take very difficult decisions on how to make savings, it is important that we remind them that community safety is one of their statutory responsibilities, and that the partnership work that we have seen between local authorities and the police locally has helped to make communities safer and must continue.

As local authorities consider how to achieve those aims, we want to ensure that local partnerships have a purpose, that they are non-bureaucratic and that they do not waste time. They should not simply involve meetings between council officials and police officers; they should be places of real action-orientated policing, with a strong focus on preventing crime and all the measures that we know to be successful, particularly in youth services.

I pay tribute to the West Midlands police and its partners in the community safety partnership for their work in tackling youth crime and violence in Birmingham. Birmingham has worked closely with the Government on a number of programmes to tackle youth crime and violence, and the city pioneered the use of civil injunctions to tackle gang violence, an approach that was subsequently enshrined in law and will go live on 31 January. This year the Home Office will provide Birmingham with £350,000 for work to tackle youth crime, in addition to £85,000 for work to tackle youth violence. So we are doing what we can.

In conclusion, I pay tribute to all the people who work in Birmingham and elsewhere to prevent and tackle youth crime and violence: local communities, police officers, police community support officers, youth offending teams and others. The Government’s aspirations for policing in the west midlands are the same. The chief constable could not have put it better when he said on 11 January:

“My task is to protect delivery at all costs, to protect the frontline, to protect neighbourhood teams which have been such a success, to keep our ability to deliver the policing people want.”

We share that ambition.

Question put and agreed to.

22:47

House adjourned.

Ministerial Corrections

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Ministerial Corrections

Tuesday 18 January 2011

Ex-servicemen: Radiation Exposure

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Chris Evans]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what benchmarking assessment his Department has made of the provisions for nuclear test veteran compensation under the US Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.

[Official Report, 8 December 2010, Vol. 520, c. 281W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Andrew Robathan:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on 8 December 2010.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Robathan]

No benchmarking has taken place.

In the United Kingdom evidence was provided in the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) reports of the three follow-up studies on the health of over 20,000 nuclear test participants and a matched group of military controls. For the United States atomic veterans no comparable large scale epidemiological US study was carried out.

The Ministry of Defence also provides pensions automatically to nuclear test veterans who have one of a list of 22 cancers presumed to be causally linked to service. For other cancers, claims may be accepted on the basis of calculated radiation exposure assessment. In the US, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) will pay a one time lump sum of 75,000 US dollars for cancers on their own list.

The correct answer should have been:

[Mr Robathan]

No benchmarking has taken place.

In the United Kingdom evidence was provided in the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) reports of the three follow-up studies on the health of over 20,000 nuclear test participants and a matched group of military controls. For the United States atomic veterans no comparable large scale epidemiological US study was carried out.

The US Department for Veterans Affairs provides pensions automatically to nuclear test veterans who have one of a list of 22 cancers presumed to be causally linked to service. For other cancers, claims may be accepted on the basis of calculated radiation exposure assessment. In the US, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) will pay a one time lump sum of 75,000 US dollars for cancers on their own list.

Air Force: Scotland

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Angus Robertson]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on redevelopment work at each Royal Air Force base in Scotland in each of the last 10 years; and what estimate he has made of his Department's likely expenditure on such work in each of the next five years.

[Official Report, 16 December 2010, Vol. 520, c. 891W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Nick Harvey:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) on 16 December 2010.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Nick Harvey]

The expenditure on redevelopment (defined as capital expenditure and minor new works) for the major RAF stations in the UK since financial year 2006-07 is shown in the following table:

[Nick Harvey]

The expenditure on redevelopment (defined as capital expenditure and minor new works) for the major RAF stations in the UK since financial year 2006-07 is shown in the following table:

Westminster Hall

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 18 January 2011

[Jim Dobbin in the Chair]

Funding Formula

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)

09:30

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to Mr Speaker for allocating me this important debate. It is a particular pleasure to serve under you, Mr Dobbin.

I have wanted to make this speech for a considerable time. As a member of a governing party with a bold and reforming agenda across large parts of Government, I hope that that spirit of boldness will also be applied to this issue and that it will be allied to a keen sense of fairness and justice so that we do the right thing by every part of the United Kingdom.

I speak as a committed Unionist and I want every part of the United Kingdom to be treated absolutely fairly as far as central Government funding is concerned. However, the formula that currently allocates funding between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland for large parts of public expenditure is broken. Even the man after whom it is named, Lord Barnett, wants to get rid of it and speaks against it. It really is time for us to look at it, as I shall try to show in my remarks.

The formula dates back to 1976. It was decided, across certain parts of Government spending, to allocate 85p in every pound to England, 10p in every pound to Scotland and 5p in every pound to Wales. That was done on the basis of population figures from the mid-1970s. Those figures have never been changed; all that has been changed over the years are the annual increments. We are therefore working on a population baseline from the mid-1970s that bears no relation to the significantly increased population in England or the increased population in Wales. At the same time, the population in Scotland has remained broadly static. In the excellent debate on the Barnett formula in the House of Lords, Lord Sewel, a Labour peer, referred to

“a series of fantasy populations”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 March 2010; Vol. 718, c. 381.]

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important subject for debate, but his comments about the starting point for the Barnett formula give the impression that the 85%, 10% and 5% figures reflected the populations of the different parts of the UK at the time. Surely, that was not the case. Even at that stage, the formula reflected the different needs in the different parts of the UK by giving Scotland and Wales a slightly higher allocation per head. Population did not define the breakdown in different parts of the UK at the start.

[Andrew Selous]

The formula was fundamentally on a population basis. If the hon. Gentleman reads the excellent report by the House of Lords Committee on the Barnett formula, which came out in July 2009, he will see the significance of the population issue. I propose that we move to a needs-based formula, and that was the Committee’s unanimous, cross-party conclusion, which was supported by its Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Labour and Cross-Bench members. I think I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I absolutely want to reflect the higher need that is clearly evident in Wales and parts of Scotland so that we are totally fair. The evidence is that we are not doing that now. The situation has become unfair, and that is a danger to the Union.

Let us see what the man after whom the formula is named has said. Speaking of the formula’s creation in 1976, he said:

“I just wanted to get through every day without too much trouble.”

He also said:

“I do not consider it is successful. I do not think it is fair.”

He added:

“I thought it might last a year or two before a government would decide to change it. It never occurred to me for one moment that it would last this long”,

or more than 30 years. Those who pray in aid the Barnett formula should be well aware that its author thinks that it is time we moved on to something that is fairer and that is built on a needs basis.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Will the hon. Gentleman refer to the Holtham commission, which looked at the nature of the funding for Wales? It identified that Wales has been underfunded historically to the tune of about £300 million per annum.

[Andrew Selous]

I will most certainly refer to the Holtham commission. What the hon. Gentleman says is quite correct. He should have no fear about what I propose. The Holtham commission came to the same conclusion as the House of Commons Justice Committee report in July 2009 and the excellent House of Lords Committee report, on which there was a good debate on 11 March 2010. The commission really said the same thing as those reports: we need to move to a needs-based formula.

The money given to Wales and Scotland is distributed on a needs basis across the Principality and Scotland. It should not, therefore, be too difficult to put together a needs-based formula to allocate the money. That is difficult to argue against, and as I said, leading members of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties came to the unanimous conclusion in the House of Lords Committee report that we should move to such a formula.

I want to spend a little time explaining why the situation is unfair for England. We sometimes look at the Barnett formula as if it is just about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As a committed Unionist, however, I think we also have to remember the English. I do not, in any sense, say that apologetically; I just think we need to be fair to everyone, because poor people in England have similar rights and should also be treated fairly.

Council tax in Scotland has been frozen for a considerable number of years. Many of my constituents have worked hard all their lives to buy the home they love, but some are forced to sell their homes because they cannot afford the council tax, which goes up year after year. Is that fair?

I also think of business rates. I represent a town called Dunstable, which recently had 56 empty shops in its high street. Many shopkeepers told me time and time again that business rates were driving them out of business. Hon. Members might therefore be interested to know that business rates in Scotland were reduced by 80% for businesses with rateable values of up to £8,000 in 2008-09 and scrapped entirely in 2009 and 2010. Business rates were cut by half for businesses with a rateable value of up to £10,000 and by up to 25% for those with a rateable value of up to £15,000. Of course, I commend the Minister for recognising that unfairness as far as England is concerned and for bringing some relief, although it is not as much or as generous as elsewhere. I thank her and her Treasury colleagues very much for what they have done, but there are businesses that would still be operating in my constituency and paying tax revenue to the Treasury had we applied that relief earlier and more fairly across the United Kingdom.

Since 2002, personal care in Scotland has been given without reference to need, whereas it is time limited and not available in the same way in England. Prescription charges are much lower in Scotland and will be abolished completely by April. They do not exist in Wales. Why should people in the same circumstances in England have to pay prescription charges? On hospital car parking charges, it costs £2.50 per visit to park at my local hospital. If someone on a low income has a family member in hospital for a long period, those charges will be significant. Again, such charges are not paid in Scotland.

This year, the situation with tuition fees and education maintenance allowance really was the straw that broke the camel’s back for a lot of people in England. English Members have been receiving lots of letters about education maintenance allowance and the fact that it is to be replaced by a discretionary grant; but of course it is being kept in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There will continue to be no tuition fees for Scottish students and there will be no increase in the fees for Welsh students, while those of English students will double. Therefore, in a few years’ time, a Scots graduate, a Welsh graduate and an English graduate, working in the same company and the same office, perhaps having done similar courses, and earning the same salary under the same taxation system, will be paying back hugely different amounts of debt. How are we supposed to explain to our constituents that that is fair? My children are already giving me considerable grief on the subject, as they look to the university fees that they will no doubt pay in a few years. It is frankly not fair, and I defy any Scottish or, indeed, Welsh Member to say that the system is fair to the English.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman got this important debate, and pleased to be able to contribute a little. There is a one-word answer to the question that he has raised: devolution. In the spirit of fairness in which he has framed his remarks I entirely agree that we need to move to a needs-based formula, and the Holtham report and all the other empirical data we have about Barnett point in the same direction. We need to move in that direction. I am encouraged to hear a Parliamentary Private Secretary thinking in such ways. However, is it not invidious to cherry-pick ways in which citizens in Wales may be better off, when they are less well off in other respects? The hon. Gentleman mentioned the relative deprivation in Wales and Scotland. That is reflected in the empirical evidence, which shows that a needs-based, deprivation-based formula would afford more money to Wales than we currently enjoy.

[Andrew Selous]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is with me in wanting a needs-based formula. He is right that the evidence of the Holtham commission, and the evidence that the House of Lords took, suggests that Wales would benefit from such a formula and that if it is to be applied fairly there should be some reduction in what Scotland currently receives.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is up to the Welsh Assembly Government and the Scottish Government to spend their money as they see fit. What is not fair and right is the allocation of money in a block grant on a bust formula from 1976, whose author no longer thinks that it is fair, when there is clearly in many cases such an imbalance between what the English and the Scottish can be offered. That is an entirely reasonable case.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Selous]

I will, but I want to finish my list—I have not got to the end of it yet—of what we do not get in England. It is really worth listing, because even the Library did not have a comprehensive list. I was adding to it as I went along.

Certain cancer drugs were available earlier in Scotland than in England—we are just catching up. Concessionary bus travel is more generous in Scotland. People can go on long-distance journeys there and take a companion, if they are disabled, which they could not do in England. I think that hon. Members who are fair and who consider the issue dispassionately and want to do the right thing by every part of the United Kingdom will agree that we cannot allow the situation to continue if we are committed Unionists.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Andrew Selous]

I cannot remember who wanted to intervene earlier; I give way to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz).

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, but it is an important debate. I welcome the tone in which he presents his case, even if I disagree with some of the conclusions. Would it not be better if he were to mention not only the areas where residents of Scotland and Wales appear to get a better deal, but those where, because of a choice made under devolution, spending is less? There is now a debate in Scotland and Wales about university funding and the effects of different tuition fee levels on university fee income. In some areas of health and transport, provision is less than in England. It is not right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) said, just to cherry-pick the areas where Scotland and Wales seem to be doing well, without referring to choices that have resulted in different consequences, which can be easily pointed out as examples of relatively lower levels of service than in England.

[Andrew Selous]

I will now move on to what I think we should do about the situation. I am proposing a needs-based way of allocating the block grant, reflecting current populations and needs, which are worse in England in some cases than in Scotland, and significantly worse in Wales than in some parts of England. That should be recognised because there is a fair, open and transparent way of proceeding, but at the moment much of what the Treasury does is not transparent. Crossrail, for example, was at one moment a UK project, designated by the Treasury. The next minute it was designated an English project so that there could be a Barnett consequential, and Scotland could get an extra £500 million. That may or may not have been right, but what was the process? Was it open to transparent scrutiny so that people in Wales and England could see that it was fair? In one year, the Treasury suddenly said that there was a £900 million underspend for 2007; that was allocated to the Scottish budget. That may have been correct, but at the moment everything is done deep in the bowels of the Treasury. I do not say that there has not been fair play, but there is a need for the process to be more open and transparent. The Treasury is judge and jury in its own court, in a process that is not open to scrutiny. I do not think that that is right.

[Hywel Williams]

I agree largely with what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. I want to point out the value of considering not only differences between Scotland, Wales and England but the interesting regional differences in England. It would be very useful for hon. Members from the north-east, for example, to look at those. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will refer to them later.

[Andrew Selous]

The hon. Gentleman is right. There are significant differences. I am an east of England MP, and that region has the lowest spending of any region in England. Perhaps that is why I get increasingly angry communications from my constituents on the matter.

Having outlined the problem and some of the unfairness, I want to talk more about what we can do. I direct my hon. Friend the Minister to the excellent conclusions of the House of Lords report of 2009 on the Barnett formula. The report looked across the world to Australia—I declare an interest in that my mother was Australian, but that does not affect whether I think the Australians have a fair and good solution, from which we could learn. In Australia, the Commonwealth Grants Commission is an independent body charged with the responsibility of dividing the cake between the Australian states and territories. It is an advisory body to the federal Government and its impartiality is completely accepted by the states and territories of Australia. I understand, and agree with Government colleagues, that we are not looking to set up extra quangos. If my hon. Friend does not want an extra quango my proposal is that we should add the specific responsibilities in question to the remit of the Office for Budget Responsibility. However, if she says that that is too much for the OBR, it is not fair to tell me that we should not have an extra quango. I would be happy to go either way, with whichever option seemed most sensible and would cost the Government less. We could add the responsibilities to those of the OBR, but if we wanted a separate body we could have one. Given the figures involved—the sums of public spending—it would be a serious body.

What the Committee in the House of Lords proposed was only illustrative. If the Government have other or better ideas, or if colleagues from either side of the House want to contribute ideas about what the needs-based formula should include, let us start the debate now. Let us get ideas rolling into the Treasury, so that we can proceed with total fairness.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

I too congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining the debate. I welcome the direction of travel that he has outlined, but I want to ask about timing. He has alluded to the impatience in England, whereas I and colleagues from Wales and Scotland would allude to the shortfall, such as that in education; there is £500 less per child in Wales than in England. There is impatience about that. The coalition Government have said that in a Welsh context a Calman-style commission will be set up after the referendum. What are the hon. Gentleman’s views on that? Do they reflect that impatience, or is he more on the go-slow track?

[Andrew Selous]

I am naturally quite an impatient person, and I want to get things done when I see something that I think is not right. However, we are in difficult times financially, and it will be incredibly difficult to move from one formula to another in these challenging times.

A sensible time scale would be for the Government to start doing the work now, setting out how we are to allocate money fairly between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on a needs basis. Once we agreed on it, there would need to be a transitional period. We cannot get away from that, because we have to do such things fairly and in a way that does not cause undue difficulties in any part of the United Kingdom.

I would be a happy person at the end of this debate if I had a sense that the Government would move toward setting up a system that allotted funding on a needs basis, and that they would agree to create some sort of body to do that, and consider a transitional period. The beauty of that is that by then we would have got through these difficult financial times, and more money would be available as we started to implement such a system. It would also make the transition easier for the parts of the United Kingdom that did not benefit.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

rose—

[Andrew Selous]

I shall give way for the last time; I have been generous in giving way, but I need to move on in order to let others speak.

[David Mowat]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. What he says about the time scale is important, particularly vis-à-vis Scotland. Next week the Scotland Bill is coming before the House. In my opinion, it will enshrine the current level of the Barnett settlement for ever, as it will link the Barnett amount that Scotland receives directly to the level of income tax paid in Scotland. As a consequence, future reforms will be difficult. I am not sure that time is on our side.

[Andrew Selous]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. He refers in part to the Calman commission and the fact that the block grant in Scotland will be reduced to 65% and that Scotland is to raise 35% of its income through tax-raising powers given under the Bill. What I am talking about will still apply, however, as 65% of Scotland’s public spending will be allocated. Everything mentioned in this debate is relevant, although we can argue about the time scale. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say. I have outlined a possible way to proceed.

I touch again on the different needs that the House of Lords Committee found. They are four: we should move to an assessment method that takes account of the age and structure of the population, as a significant number of older people require extra spending; we need to consider low incomes; we should take account of ill health and disability; and we should consider economic weakness. All of us would probably have some sympathy with those four indicators. There would be value in setting up an independent commission, as it would allow people to make representations, and extra factors could be taken into account to deal with the particular situation in Wales or Scotland. Indeed, it has been done successfully in Scotland.

The House of Lords debated the Barnett formula report on 11 March 2010. Lord Moser, a former head Government statistician who was appointed by a previous Labour Government, said:

“We emphasised repeatedly that, especially in the hands of an independent body, backed by thorough and on-going research, this was an eminently practical task. It is just not true to say that it is difficult or too time-consuming or too complex—that is not so.”

He was talking about the task of setting up a new needs-based commission.

Baroness Hollis, a distinguished Labour peer, spoke of the differences in funding for personal care:

“What could be more unfair…than an elderly, frail person in East Anglia receiving perhaps only two-thirds, in public expenditure terms, of what an equally elderly, frail person in Scotland receives, even though the person in East Anglia is poorer, because we are hanging on to an unfair population basis of estimating subsidy?”

Lord Newby, a Liberal Democrat from Scotland, said:

“In terms of gaining public acceptance for a conclusion which will inevitably mean funds being taken away from Scotland, it is interesting to note that within the Lib Dems we had quite a spirited discussion with our colleagues in Scotland when we first proposed this, as you can imagine. In the end, the argument that fairness is the only long-term sustainable basis for allocating expenditure won the day, as I am sure it will in future as this case is made more widely.”

I note that Lord Davies of Oldham, then a Labour Treasury Minister, wound up the debate by saying of the report’s authors:

“They have created a framework within which the disadvantages of the Barnett formula are such that a reforming Government would need to look at them.”

That brings me back to my opening remarks. I am proud to be part of a reforming Government, and I hope that we will not be dilatory in this matter.

Baroness Noakes, then our shadow Treasury Minister, said in response to the debate:

“In principle, this is something which my party supports. We also support the transparency advocated by my noble friend Lord Trimble.”

She also spoke of

“an inevitable conclusion that change is necessary.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 March 2010; Vol. 718, c. 371-404.]

I thank all Members who wish to contribute to the debate, and I shall listen with interest to what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say in response.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

A number of hon. Members wish to speak. I remind the House that the wind-ups will start at 10.40 am, so I ask Members to keep their contributions brief.

09:56

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. Before the debate started, I forewarned you that I may have to leave early because of my Select Committee responsibilities, and I apologise for that.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing this debate. I recognise and support the spirit in which he has raised this sensitive matter, which affects all the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. He has underlined the point that we have a reforming Government and that bold steps need to be taken to come up with a formula that will serve all the nations and regions in a positive and constructive way that is dependent on need. The debate has been going on for some time in Wales. Even before the evidence was as stark as it is now, there was a view that relative deprivation in Wales meant that the Barnett formula was not serving Wales well.

A mathematical formula, such as the Barnett formula, offers significant advantages. The first advantage is that it offers a guarantee of funding, particularly to devolved Administrations, who need such a guarantee to plan, which prevents, for example, the Welsh Assembly Government, or the Wales Office on its behalf here in Westminster, becoming involved in horse trading year on year. Such a mathematical formula obviously offers that guarantee. The second advantage is that in times of limited or reduced spending, the Barnett formula offers protection to the devolved Administrations.

On the other hand, there are significant disadvantages with the formula being so far out of date, and I regret the time that it has taken to get to this point. The previous Government should accept their responsibility for leaving it so long. Despite Lord Barnett’s strong view that the formula needed reform, it was not accepted. He plainly said that the formula was unfair.

[Hywel Williams]

My memory of that slightly pre-dates the hon. Gentleman’s. I draw his attention to numerous debates over many years when Front-Bench spokesmen on both sides used the formulation, “The Barnett formula serves Wales well.” The hon. Gentleman should concede that both Conservative and Labour Governments were staunch defenders of the Barnett formula. My party, of course, took another view.

[Alun Cairns]

I shall square that point in a moment, but I do not want to let the previous Government off the hook for their delaying tactics in resolving the matter because of its sensitivity. Whereas Lord Barnett plainly said that it was not fair, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that it was fair enough. That certainly was not good enough for Wales. I regret to say that despite 13 years in office, the previous Government did not have the opportunity to resolve the formula.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

It is important to point out that back in 1999 and 2000, Wales, on average, received £125 for every £100 in England. In 2010-11, Wales receives around £112 for every £100 in England. Therefore, the Welsh treatment under the Conservative Government is significantly better than it was under the Labour party, when there was a significant decline in funding for Wales.

[Alun Cairns]

I will come on to the convergence in a moment. None the less, it is a point that is well made and that should be recognised by the Labour party. It is important not to confuse freedom of devolution, which enables nations to pursue their own policies, with funding. There is naturally a link, but because there is a policy, subsidy or generosity in one particular area, it should not then be used as proof or evidence of over-funding when we consider the whole context.

[Owen Smith]

I was rising to make precisely that point. Does the hon. Gentleman fear, as I do, that the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) will not be happy when we have a needs-based formula, because those examples that he cherry-picked earlier will still exist? The politics of envy, which underpins some of his concerns, will still play into this debate.

[Alun Cairns]

That point only demonstrates the hon. Gentleman’s misunderstanding of the spirit and tone of the debate presented by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire. My hon. Friend identified the differences, but recognised that that freedom needs to take place when we consider devolution. The obvious things in Wales are free prescriptions and—this one has focused attention of late—tuition fees. To those hon. Members who are critical of the Barnett formula because it is advantageous to Wales, I say that our NHS waiting lists are much longer and that the cancer drugs fund does not apply, so there are considerable drawbacks, and they need to be taken in the context of the whole funding settlement. It is far too easy to pick a policy that has been prioritised by the Welsh Assembly Government without accepting the areas that may not have been prioritised. Health is the obvious one. In England, for example, there is a guarantee of no cuts in NHS spending, whereas in Wales there will be real-term cuts and financial cuts to the health service. That point should be recognised in the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) has referred to the positive contribution of the Holtham commission. The two volumes of the Holtham commission can be brought down to a few figures. At the moment, Wales receives £113, which will drop to £112, for every £100 that is spent in England; Scotland receives £120; and Northern Ireland receives £124. Holtham concludes that Wales needs £115, which is marginally more than it is currently being awarded; Scotland needs £105, which is a significant reduction from its £120 now; and the figure for Northern Ireland is not far from what it already receives. That is the first needs-based assessment that has taken place. If that is not accepted in general terms, it is certainly an exceptionally useful starting point of where the needs lie.

The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) has said that, historically, Wales has been underfunded by £300 million, but that fails to understand the convergence that has taken place over the past 13 years or more. That £300 million is the current level, and it would have been a much smaller level in the past.

A very good point has been made about Crossrail. Despite the view that the Labour party in Wales is taking at the moment, we can compare the spending on Crossrail with that on the Jubilee line. The spending on the Jubilee line was Barnettised, but the spending on Crossrail by the previous Government was not, which highlights another way in which Wales was treated unfairly by the previous Administration. It is far too easy to point the finger, when a real debate is taking place on satisfying the needs-based requirement.

My closing points—I am conscious of the time—relate to the way forward. All the nations and regions need to engage in the debate about this extremely sensitive area. Those who are allied with the Scottish National party are a block not only to any form of debate—that position is natural, because of the way in which Scotland would lose out—but to changes elsewhere in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Arfon builds up a strong relationship with the Scottish nationalists, he must recognise that that is blocking reform in Wales, because every part of the UK needs to engage in this debate if we are to come up with a needs-based formula that satisfies all the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.

10:06

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I am grateful to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I will make a few brief remarks, because I, too, am on the Select Committee to which the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) has referred. I must leave early, for which I apologise.

I welcome today’s important debate. Although the issue has been debated many times in this House—there was a recent debate in the House of Lords, which produced an excellent report that is well worth reading—it is worth debating again. The issue was not resolved by the Labour Government. I accept that we were tardy in addressing the issue. Once we saw the firm evidence in the Holtham report on convergence—the so-called Barnett squeeze that resulted in a reduction in the relative benefits to Wales over the past 10 to 15 years—we responded to that at the last election. The previous Labour Government were keen to see fair funding for Wales, and we went into the last election fighting for that pledge. Had we won, we would have delivered fair funding. I hope that this current Government will be true to their word and look to deliver a different form of funding for Wales and the other devolved nations and regions of the UK, and I hope that it will be needs-based, as the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) has said.

My caveat—I did not mean to personalise the debate earlier in referring to the politics of envy—is that at some level, the hon. Gentleman’s underpinning concern is that parts of England do not benefit. In particular, he points to the fact that historically the east of England, which he represents, has featured towards the bottom of the league table of public expenditure over a long period. That is, in itself, reflective of the relative needs of the east of England. We have for the English regions, as Holtham and others have pointed out, a needs-based formula. Indeed, one of the conclusions of the excellent House of Lords report is that a quick interim measure would be for Wales and Scotland to go to a needs-based formula based on the English version.

As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, aspects of policy in the devolved nations and regions can foment a sense of envy. When one looks at the responses in the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph on tuition fees, which range from outrage that the Welsh are doing something different through to incredulity that such a policy can be afforded in Wales, one sees that they reflect the lack of understanding that persists across the House about the way in which devolution works.

Current Government Members, such as the hon. Gentleman, have highlighted examples of how Wales and citizens in Wales appear to benefit financially from the devolution of powers and the policies that are pursued in Wales, whereas hon. Members from Wales have highlighted other areas, such as the health service, where—according to those hon. Members—people in Wales are not benefiting.

[Andrew Selous]

The evidence from Holtham and from the House of Lords Select Committee is that Wales would gain from a needs-based formula. So there is no part of what I have said that would cause problems as far as the Welsh are concerned. It appears that Scotland is more generously funded than a needs-based formula would suggest, but that is what we need to set up a commission to look into.

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I fully appreciate that point; I heard him say very clearly that Wales would benefit. My point is simply that I fear that in much of the debate on this subject there is a concern that English regions do not benefit where other parts of the UK, particularly the devolved regions, do. Traditionally English Members from both Houses have expressed that view, which underpins and unfortunately colours debate on this subject.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Is it not the case that moving to a needs-based formula would receive universal support, would be value-free and would not allow any political interference is an illusory hope, because even with a needs-based formula the question arises of how one assesses needs? For example, how much importance should be given to rural diversity and to the length of communications in Scotland? If a high priority were given to ferry links to the Shetland Isles and Western Isles, there would obviously be a high result there. When it comes to funding that depends on age, there are some parts of both Scotland and Wales where unfortunately, because of ill health, some people do not live to an older age, which would not be reflected in the formula. The idea that we can move to a value-free system with a needs-based formula is somewhat illusory. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

[Owen Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend—that is essentially what I was trying to say a moment ago. An arm’s-length independent organisation, which Holtham considered—whether it is the Office for Budget Responsibility or whether it is some other body—is an excellent idea that we should take account of.

[David Mowat]

The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) has said that it is not easy to conduct a needs-based analysis, but that does not mean that it should not be tried. He has raised the issue of sparsity in Scotland and the fact that many people live in the Western Isles, Orkney and such places, which makes a difference. There is a precedent for such an analysis, which was carried out by the Scottish NHS and which is referred to in the report by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Barnett formula. The cost was about 15% extra for that component of the population. However, the point is that that component of the population is very small and the overall impact is less than 1.5%. So it is right that that factor is taken into account, but it is not material to what we are discussing.

[Owen Smith]

The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) has made—that it will be very difficult to introduce a needs-based formula—is valid. The aspects of a needs-based formula that ought to be taken into consideration and the weighting that ought to be placed on those aspects individually will not be incontestable. So it is easy to bracket them under “deprivation and sparsity”, or “deprivation” and some other criterion. Within that, there will be all sorts of eminently contestable notions related to the number of children in a country, the number of older people who are dependent, sparsity and all sorts of other aspects, which will be eminently contestable.

The simple point that I was trying to make is that even if we shift to a wholly independent—or ostensibly independent—and wholly needs-based formula, we will still see divergences and differences between the relative spending priorities and the relative quantum spent on individual aspects of public services across different parts of the country. That will still fuel a sense of resentment in certain quarters, when parts of the country are perceived as doing better than others. I therefore caution that we would not all be happy with a needs-based formula and I suggest that the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire—

[Andrew Selous]

We would be happier.

[Owen Smith]

“Happier”—okay, well perhaps we would be “happier”. I, too, would be “happier” if we went to a needs-based formula; I will concede that much.

In conclusion, I simply add that at last we agree across this House that a fairer funding formula ought to be pursued and that Barnett has seen its day. I therefore commend the Government for considering how we might do something important about it in the future.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

There are still three hon. Members who want to contribute, so I remind hon. Members of the time.

10:14

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

I will be very brief, Mr Dobbin. Thank you very much for calling me. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning. I also want to apologise in advance for the fact that I might have to leave before the conclusion of the debate, because of Select Committee responsibilities.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing this debate. In my view, the debate has been very positive and the spirit in which it has been conducted is something that we should be proud of, because it has not been a case of people complaining about the unfairness of the funding system in relation to England. Instead, the debate has highlighted real concerns about the fact that the current system is possibly unsustainable, because we are creating anomalies that are very difficult to justify in the long term.

I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), inasmuch as the fact that some of the examples that have been given about the differences, for example, between Wales and England in terms of spending is in danger of confusing the issue of Barnett with the actual effect of devolution. As a Member from north Wales, where one can get to Cheshire in less than an hour along the A55 on a good day, I am very aware of the fact that, for instance, the decisions made by the Welsh Assembly during the past 12 years have resulted in spending on education being significantly less per head in Wales than in England. That is a real concern for people in north Wales, because we can actually see the differences between spending in Cheshire and the spending in north Wales. That is an effect not of Barnett but of the decisions that have been made and the priorities that have been set by the Welsh Assembly. As I said in my contribution to the debate on the issue of student funding, I personally feel that the decision made by the Welsh Assembly, within the Barnett block grant, in relation to funding student fees in future is actually an attack on the Welsh university system, which will be disastrous in the long term for Wales. Again, however, that is a decision that has been made within the funding formula. It is important when we have this debate on the funding formula to be aware of the fact that, on some clearly beneficial spending priorities established by the Welsh Assembly, there are counter-arguments, in terms of examples of spending decisions made in Wales that are actually quite damaging.

There are things that we need to be aware of about Barnett. In the Welsh context, there is concern that there has been a real change in the way in which Barnett works in Wales. I have already highlighted the fact, in an intervention, that in 1999-2000, Wales received on average about £125 for every £100 spent in England. That figure has reduced to about £112 for every £100 spent in England and obviously that reduction has been highlighted in Wales regularly. Therefore, I genuinely applaud the Welsh Assembly for commissioning the Holtham report, because the argument that Wales was underfunded and was being unfairly treated in some way was one that we had heard a lot about. I think that the Holtham report gave a very secure background to that debate and explained that Wales was, in comparative terms, being underfunded, if one takes into account the needs of Wales. That point has been acknowledged in this debate by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire, so it is a genuine issue.

Therefore, there is now a growing need to address the fact that the Barnett system is out of date and is creating a real problem. That situation has been made much worse by the implications of the Barnett squeeze; because of the way that the system works, as spending was increasing, the allocation to Wales on a pro rata basis was not increasing at the same rate.

That brings us to another important point. It has been highlighted by Holtham, and I do not think a single Member of this House would argue against this fact: most analyses of the Barnett formula seem to indicate that, if we try to move to some needs-based formula that is not dissimilar to the one used in England, the effect will be to increase the funding to Wales slightly—even if it is only a slight increase, it would be most welcome—but there would be a significant difference to the funding for Scotland.

That is an issue that we need to think about very carefully, because as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan pointed out there is currently a block on consideration of the issue. Quite clearly, the Scottish Parliament is not looking to implement any changes, because the advantage is given to it by the current system.

Nevertheless, in my view there is a real issue here, which is the continuation of the happy relationship between the four component parts of the United Kingdom, because ultimately an ongoing sense of unfairness, which has been highlighted from an English point of view, is not compatible with the sustainability of the Union. There is a genuine need to consider coming up with a new formula that will replace Barnett and that will try to be fairer to all parts of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) made the point that no new system would necessarily result in everyone being happy, but that is not in itself an argument against sticking with a system that was implemented in 1976. Ultimately, it is important that the present Government take the issue in hand, to ensure that we have a system that is fairer to all parts of the United Kingdom.

Finally, I need to make a point about the Welsh context. The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) is a Plaid Cymru Member, and his party has certainly been very vocal about the unfairness of Barnett. I think that it is fair to say that when the Holtham report was published there was genuine disappointment among some members of Plaid Cymru that the highlighted shortfall of £300 million was significantly lower than some of the figures that had been bandied around. Shortly after the publication of the report, I took part in a debate in Bangor university with the former president of Plaid Cymru and, in view of the evidence that had been collected, he could not argue that Wales was extremely hard done by under the current system.

[Hywel Williams]

Did I hear the hon. Gentleman say that the possible £300 million increase in funding for Wales was minor?

[Guto Bebb]

It is minor in the context of the unfairness that has been claimed by the hon. Gentleman’s party in the past. Currently, we spend about 112%, compared with the Holtham recommendation of 115%. In view of the fact that in 1999-2000 we were spending 125% compared to 100%, I think that my description is fair. The important point is that it is odd, to say the least, to hear a nationalist party, which now advocates independence, arguing very strongly for a needs-based formula that takes into account the need for transfers from England to subsidise the situation in Wales. I would fully subscribe to that. One of the hard lessons that I have learnt in life is that Wales is part of the United Kingdom, and as a result we accept that there can be transfers between the regions and nations of the United Kingdom to reflect their different needs. I find it odd that a party that advocates breaking that link can also stand up and argue for increased funding from the English taxpayer, to subsidise the situation in Wales.

[Hywel Williams]

I do not want to engage in what might be an internecine struggle, given the hon. Gentleman’s previous membership of my party and his strong advocacy of our policies, many years ago before he jumped ship—apparently on the matter of the currency. Does he accept that the Holtham report makes a three-step recommendation: first, a floor is established; secondly, there is then a needs-based formula; and thirdly, which is the point that the hon. Gentleman mentions, a differential taxation system for Wales is considered? The snapshot that he presents as our policy is certainly not our policy; it is one point on the journey.

[Guto Bebb]

The problem with the hon. Gentleman’s point is that it would require the agreement of the Scottish Parliament and we would have to look at the matter on a UK-wide basis. He is perfectly right to highlight my background regarding the single currency. The crucial issue was that one of the arguments against a single currency was that it was difficult to see how transfers from Germany to Greece, for example, to subsidise that currency could be justified. We now see that situation, and it has been highlighted in a book by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). My view is that we can still justify transfers within the United Kingdom to the different regions of England and to the nations, on the basis that we have a shared heritage and a shared belief that we are part of the United Kingdom. I was of the view that that shared heritage would not be there at European Union level, and we might see that issue tested to destruction this year. I do not want to see the situation that we have in the United Kingdom, with transfers within the Union, destroyed by a clear unfairness in the system. Wales will probably benefit from a needs-based system, but we certainly need to look at the issue during this Parliament because I think that otherwise there will be a growing disenchantment with the system on the part of the English taxpayer, and that would be bad for the needs of people in Wales.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Hon. Members might be interested to know that Lord Barnett was a predecessor of mine. I did not realise that my constituency had such an impact on Government funding.

10:24

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I very much welcome this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing it. The issue has been possibly an obsession of my party for many years, and so I am glad to see other people sharing that obsession—or disability.

I should like to focus briefly on the Barnett formula and on Wales, rather than on the English regions, because there are clear implications for the English regions, as I have already said. There are great differences between the funding for the regions within England, and the debate on that can be informed by looking at what has happened in Wales for many years. We have already heard that the Holtham report points out the requirement for Wales now to have a needs-based assessment. In fact, such assessments have been needed in Wales for many years, and they are already carried out in some English regions. The Barnett formula was developed in the ’70s and implemented in 1978—not in 1976, as has been said. It was based on historical spending and the size of the population—basically on the success of Ministers in extracting money from the Treasury pre-1978. It is a converging formula, and we have seen it in operation for many years. Between 1999 and 2007, public spending in England rose by 33%, and in Wales by 28%. That is the nature of convergence: public spending rose, but less quickly in Wales.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The hon. Gentleman’s point needs to be underlined, because although many people suggest that the Barnett formula gives an unfair bias towards Scotland and Wales, it is in fact designed to level their expenditure down to the English average. It is not in any sense a formula that protects Scotland and Wales.

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but my point is that it is a converging formula, and that Wales is gradually losing out. Jumping forward to one of my later points, Holtham called for a floor to be established, and the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) referred to that before the election. We have consistently called for public sector funding in Wales to be based on needs, and our calls have been ignored and rejected. I do not know how many times I have heard the right hon. Member for Neath, and current Government Members, saying that the Barnett formula has served Wales well. Joel Barnett himself said, in a statement on 11 January 2009:

“I only meant the Barnett formula to last a year, not 30…One of the problems is that it was not based on need. It determined on the basis of population how much more or less funding Scotland should receive when cuts or increases in public spending were being made across the United Kingdom.”

I note, however, that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) used his appearance at the Wales Labour pre-election conference last year to call Barnett a needs-based formula. It is, of course, no such thing.

The report produced by Gerry Holtham has received the support of all the main political parties in Wales, and I am glad there is a measure of cross-party consensus this morning. The report calls for a floor to prevent further erosion of Welsh funding, for the reform of the formula to make it a needs-based one, and to at least stop, if not necessarily correct, the historical underspend on Welsh services. It then calls for differential taxation to be considered, to ensure that the Welsh Government take greater responsibility for their own spending. As I have noted many times in speeches in this place, the Welsh Government get a very large amount of money and are responsible for raising not a single penny piece of it, which is, I think, a fundamentally bad situation.

The underspend in Wales has been recently estimated at around £300 million—a significant sum—and there has been a knock-on effect on the private sector, as I am sure the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) knows. The public sector in Wales is so large and is such a significant purchaser of goods and services, that if it were to have more money there would be a knock-on effect on the private sector. Because the formula reflects an historical position rather than an assessment of need, it has put Wales in a fundamentally weak position. We are funded on the basis of proportional Government spending in England and Wales, or in Great Britain, depending on the circumstances. Spending in Wales has been largely subject to changes in Government priorities on an England, England and Wales or GB basis, so we follow those priorities. We now have a Government in Cardiff who cut the cake as they see fit, but of course the size of that cake always depends on other matters. Hospital parking and prescription charges have been referred to, so I will not pursue those issues given the time.

How to define need has been discussed somewhat. I point hon. Members to the Holtham commission’s report, which suggests six steps based on such considerations as the number of old and young people, rurality and so on. The point was made that that might be complex, but that does not mean that we should not do it. I point hon. Members to an interesting example: the Welsh index of multiple deprivation, which has replaced the Townsend index of poverty. The Welsh index is complicated, but it is very effective. It can be done.

The Government have been clouding the issue by considering Wales’s funding as something that can be postponed until the recession is over. It must be examined now, for good reasons of governance in Wales and to eliminate the reasonable feelings that the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire mentioned. Will the Minister tell us when the Government intend to start considering the Holtham inquiry’s recommendations for Wales and, more broadly, for the rest of the UK?

10:31

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

This is a timely debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for securing it. I will keep my comments brief to assist one more Member to speak.

Public funding effectively comes in two chunks. The largest is spending through central Departments; the smaller comes through the grant formula for local government. The emphasis today has been on the application of the Barnett formula to the local government grant, but the reality is that Barnett has had a creep effect and has become the default mechanism for making decisions even in mainstream Departments. Reforming Barnett is about reforming it as it is applied not just in local government but elsewhere.

The particular problem in my south-western constituency of Newton Abbot, in Devon, is that we are one of the largest regions in the country. Consequently, we have huge transport challenges, but the sparsity effect is not taken into account when funding formulae are determined for our local authorities. Some 20% of the south-west is rural, and it is a well-known and well-researched fact that our rural deprivation is high, which carries a heavy cost: 22% of people in the south-west live on the state pension, the highest number in the country as a whole. We all know the impact of the elderly on local government spending. In the south-west, 10% of people are over 75. I am pleased to say that they have a high life expectancy, but unfortunately that does not help the coffers.

We were fortunate this time around. Devon county council suffered a spending power cut of only 1.77%; in Teignbridge, my district authority, it was 5.89%. For that, I am grateful, but looking forward, the issue must be addressed. As I said, Departments have used Barnett when considering health funding and other devolved sums of money, and as a result, the south-west has fallen down the league tables. In 2009-10, the south-west was allocated only £42 billion across Departments, the third lowest regional spend in England. It has caused an awful lot of problems. We have 12.5% of the population, yet only 12% of the spend, even before aggravating factors are considered.

Children in Devon are particularly underfunded. We are 146th of 152 in the spending league tables. It has been calculated that in health care, we are £12 million short of the figure that would have been fair. We have the lowest spend per head in England on transport infrastructure, yet we are extremely rural and 14% of the population have no car. I urge the Minister to consider seriously the request for a needs-based formula, as it is clearly the way forward. I commend the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire.

10:35

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

This has been an important debate, focusing more on Wales than on Scotland. There is a disparity in Wales—the figure of £300 million has been mentioned—but it is dwarfed by the Holtham estimate of the disparity in Scotland, which is £4.5 billion. Many English Members of Parliament, particularly those from the north, are being forced to go back to their constituencies and defend an austere budgetary environment. It is tough to do so when £4 billion a year over and above the needs-based amount is being sent to Scotland.

I have two quick points to make; I will finish by 10.40. We use the term “needs-based” a lot. The real issue is not need; it is population movement. We could continue to use the Barnett formula of 1976 if we adjusted it for the population changes that have occurred since then. It would be a simple arithmetical adjustment. It is true that a needs-based analysis could be complex, but that change is not required. We need only to adjust the formula for relative population movement, and it would eradicate two thirds of the current imbalances.

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Gentleman is coming to the point that I wished to make. It is a converging formula, so there are issues other than population change to be considered.

[David Mowat]

It is not wholly a converging formula; I do not agree. For example, if the baseline population is not adjusted in arithmetical terms, it means that if the population of Scotland fell to one, that person would get all the money. We do not change it for population, which is indefensible. As I said, I regret the fact that there are no Members from Scotland here, unless I am misinformed.

[Andrew Selous]

There are two.

[David Mowat]

What defence of the situation is made in Scotland? I have heard two defences. We have heard the sparsity defence; I have also heard the defence in terms of oil revenues. It is argued that somehow, the £4.5 billion Barnett imbalance roughly compensates Scotland for the additional oil revenue that it has had to give up to the Union or whatever. That is a poor argument.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Mowat]

I will finish my point. Other affluent areas of the United Kingdom are liable for relatively higher levels of income tax, and we do not necessarily expect those areas to have better services.

Finally—I would like the Minister to address this point in her closing remarks—I am concerned that the Scotland Bill, as it is currently configured, will institutionalise the Barnett formula for ever by creating a link between income tax levels in Scotland and current levels of Barnett settlement. In other words, that extra £4 billion will be linked for ever to income tax levels in Scotland. What that means in broad terms is that in order for the Scottish income tax base to make up the £4 billion that Scotland receives over and above a needs basis, additional Scottish income tax of between 12p and 15p in the pound would be required. That will never happen.

For the same reason, it will be difficult to review the formula significantly after the link to income tax has been created. If that is the case, we seem to be stuck with the imbalance, which means that every constituent of mine—my constituency of Warrington, in the north of England, is not overly affluent—receives some £5,000 less over the lifetime of a Parliament than his equivalent in Scotland, which would not be the case if the funding were needs-based. That is not to say that England and Scotland should be the same. Holtham did not say that. The figure that Holtham used and that currently exists is 120% of the English settlement in Scotland, but 107% would probably be a fairer figure. That is not the same, but it is a lot closer than it is now. I am concerned that if the Scotland Bill passes unamended, we will institutionalise the matter for ever, which, frankly, will be bad for the Union.

10:40

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As ever, Mr Dobbin, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. It is also a pleasure to see so many hon. Members present. Some have left to attend a Select Committee, but this has been a good debate in which a lot of people have had an opportunity to participate.

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) is passionate about the issue and has raised it on a number of occasions in Parliament. I accept that the issue is complex and that it is worthy of debate. However, although it is easy to criticise the operation of existing mechanisms, it is more difficult to come up with an ideal solution. The hon. Gentleman stated that the Barnett formula is broken, and he has argued passionately for a needs-based formula. He is waving a hefty document at me. If he would like to pass me a copy, I will sit down and digest it with great enthusiasm at some point.

The Barnett formula has been criticised over the years and, as the hon. Gentleman has said, its inventor, Lord Barnett himself, has suggested that we might need to move towards a needs-based formula. The hon. Gentleman has highlighted arguments criticising the formula, but it is easy to conflate and confuse two issues: what happens in terms of spending within a devolved nation as a consequence of devolution, and what is a direct consequence of the Barnett formula. He highlighted the differences in devolved areas in relation to council tax, prescription charges, tuition fees, education maintenance allowances, hospital car parking and so on. However, I should like to question his comments on the differences in relation to bus travel. He said that it was not possible in England for the carer of a disabled person to travel for free with them, but that is certainly not the case in my local area. Perhaps it is up to local authorities to decide, but in my area people get free bus travel if they can show that they are in the company of someone for whom they are caring.

The issues raised by the hon. Gentleman remind us of the argument about whether devolution is about deciding the size of the cake or about allocating who gets which piece of the cake. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) said, Scotland misses out in other areas as a consequence of policies on prescription charges and tuition fees that differ from those in England. Moreover, the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), who is no longer present, pointed out that waiting lists are far longer in Wales as a consequence of decisions taken, using devolutionary powers, to spend money elsewhere. He said that, as a consequence, there will be real-term cuts in the health service—in the cancer drugs fund, for example—in Wales.

We have to accept that our establishment of the devolved Parliament and Assemblies means that the basic principle of devolution will lead to differentials in spending. It may create a sense of unfairness, but I do not think that that is particularly germane to the issue of the Barnett formula and its grant.

[Andrew Selous]

I understand what the hon. Lady is saying and I do not disagree with her that how the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government spend the money they are given is up to them. I have no quarrel with that. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) has said, if Scotland is getting £4.5 billion more than a needs-based assessment might imply, does she not understand that that can fund additional services that are not available to her constituents and mine?

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I have said, the Barnett formula is not perfect. We have established the Calman commission and the Holtham commission to look at the more detailed issues of how devolution works and how we fund matters.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

As we have already heard, the Barnett formula is essentially based upon historical levels of spending, which means that the relatively high levels in Scotland and Wales reflect the decades of argument between Government Departments making the case for higher spending in those areas. It has not appeared from nowhere. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a question not only of having to assess needs, but of the impact of Government spending? For example, there is no doubt whatever that the presence of Government in London is a major boost to the London economy. That does not apply to the Barnett formula, but it means that London benefits from Government spending in a way that other parts of the UK—not just Scotland and Wales—do not.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I agree entirely. Statistics are thrown around about public spending, its impact and who gets the most. It is not just about Government block grants, but about things such as welfare spending and the impact of locally raised funding, such as council tax, which is a separate issue. I think that people sometimes forget that.

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire argued that either a separate body or the Office for Budget Responsibility should administer and oversee the introduction of a needs-based allocations system. I agree that, if we are to move towards something like that, now is not the time to introduce radical change overnight. This is a difficult time economically, and the Scotland Bill, which is making its way through Parliament, will have a major impact on the tax-raising powers of the Scottish Parliament. There are decisions to be made about whether it will take up those tax-raising powers and the impact that would have on its spending. The impact of the comprehensive spending review settlements on the devolved nations is also an issue.

I accept—I think that there is cross-party consensus on this—that we need to examine the case for moving towards a needs-based formula. Some of my colleagues have said that, but it has to be done carefully. I do not want to return to line-by-line negotiations with the devolved nations whenever there is a spending round. There has to be a formula of some sort. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) said that a needs-based formula would be eminently contestable. It would be difficult to establish which needs should be taken into account and which needs should not.

[Andrew Selous]

Does the hon. Lady think that we are so much more pathetic than Australia? Queensland and New South Wales are at each other’s throats to get more funding, yet they have a settled procedure which they all respect. Does she really not think that we can aspire to and achieve that in this country?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am saying not that it is impossible to achieve, but that it is difficult. The Barnett formula was established in the 1970s and people have said that the implication was that it was intended to be in place for only a year. A Labour Government operated under the Barnett formula for 13 years, but a Conservative Government operated under the same formula for 18 years, so this applies to successive Governments. Although there were criticisms, they were unable to find the ideal solution to replace it. Devolution has bedded in and there has been a call from the devolved Assemblies for more powers, which is going to throw the issue into the spotlight again. It is time to revisit it.

[Hywel Williams]

Is the hon. Lady, as a Front-Bench spokesman for the Labour party, saying that the Barnett formula is serving Wales well now? If that is not what she is saying, what is her argument for not changing it as soon as possible?

[Kerry McCarthy]

The argument for not changing the formula as soon as possible is exactly as I have said. At a time when spending cuts are hitting Welsh people, as well as people throughout the rest of the UK, and when changes are afoot and the Welsh Assembly is arguing for it to be given similar powers to those of the Scottish Parliament, we have to look at all those things in the round. There is no immediate solution or magic bullet that will sort the matter out. I accept the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, who feels that a needs-based formula would serve the UK better.

I am conscious of the time so, to sum up, I shall just say that we accept that the Barnett formula is not perfect and that the situation needs to be reviewed. However, we would be very worried if there were a rush towards jettisoning the Barnett formula overnight. We must deal with the matter in a measured, considered way and with an acknowledgment that devolution is at the heart of the matter. There are devolved powers and we cannot expect Scotland and Wales to conduct their spending and financial affairs in exactly the same way as the rest of the UK.

10:50

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin, particularly given your constituency’s links to the debate today, which became apparent during the discussion. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on initiating an excellent debate. All hon. Members have made some articulate, well-argued points and I will do my best to try to respond to them during the next nine minutes. Given the fact that so many points have been made, if I do not cover all the issues, I will write to my hon. Friend afterwards to amplify them.

I shall start by being frank. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government’s priority is to tackle the fiscal deficit. Although we do not have any current plans to review the Barnett formula, it is also fair to say that we accept it is not written in stone. Therefore, we look with interest at debates such as this one. The current statement of funding policy that we issued in October 2010 after the spending review was made in consultation with the devolved Administrations. Before I get on to some of my more detailed comments, I shall state a problem and then an observation about the issue. The problem is that, as the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the previous Government said, there is no money left. My observation on the debate is that I do not think anyone is arguing for a change in the Barnett formula on the assumption that their local community will come out of it with less money.

Those are the two challenges that we face. Hon. Members are absolutely right to make the case for the funding that their local communities need. The challenge is to ensure that we get the most out of the constrained pot that we have and to ensure in the future that the formula works effectively, whether that is at the Barnett level or at the England local government level, not just in terms of the absolute cash that goes in—there has been much discussion about cash per head and various Government policy areas—but critically in terms of what comes out. Despite today’s debate, we should never lose sight of the importance of discussing the quality of policy alongside the quantity of money that is going in. The cautionary tale is that the Barnett formula, which Lord Barnett said was only ever intended to be a short-term measure, has actually had a longevity that no one anticipated. It is worth while Ministers of today and tomorrow pondering the fact that, even if we think the decisions we take today are short-term, they might ultimately prove to be far more long term than we realise.

[Hywel Williams]

Is the Minister saying that underfunding in Wales will be addressed only when the economy grows and when we can afford to do so in a way that we currently cannot? Does she accept that that is irrelevant to the fact there is unfairness now?

[Justine Greening]

I shall make two points about the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. First, Wales is well funded. Secondly, let us consider how the Government have approached the spending review. It turns out that, because of how the formula works, the decisions we took to protect the NHS budget and the education budget in cash terms and in terms of schools has meant that the Welsh Assembly Government have probably received a more generous settlement out of Barnett than they would have if the previous Administration had stayed in office.

On the points raised today, clearly there have been a number of inquiries and reports on the Barnett formula and the devolution settlement. One such review is the Calman report on Scotland. As we have heard, the Scotland Bill is passing through Parliament and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) is right to say that the legislation will devolve some of the financial management of income tax to the Scottish Government. However, I can assure him that it will not fix the Barnett formula in stone for the future. A further aspect to the Barnett formula is the Holtham commission, the findings of which illustrate the point I made at the start of my speech. The Holtham commission considered how a needs-based formula would work for Wales and said that such a formula would mean Wales got more, which would put more funding pressures on settlements for other areas. That shows that there are no easy answers to the debate.

[David Mowat]

On the point I raised about the Scotland Bill, it does not explicitly say that the Barnett formula can never be changed in future. The point I was making is that, once we link a baseline Barnett assessment to the level of Scottish income tax, it becomes extremely difficult to change. The £4 billion additional money that Scotland gets through Barnett is equivalent to 12p to 15p of income tax. In theory, the Scottish Government could reduce their income tax levels by 12p and go down to a needs-based analysis and it would be hard for us subsequently to change that.

[Justine Greening]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. However, in many respects, the point of devolution is to allow more local decision making to take place across the different devolved Administrations.

Just to finish off the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), clearly there will be a referendum in Wales on whether primary legislative powers should be held by the Welsh Assembly Government. We will wait to see the outcome of that referendum before deciding how to take forward some of the points of the Holtham report.

On some of the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire about transparency, the chapter and verse of the funding formula is in the current statement of funding policy. I admit that it is not the most riveting read in the world, but it does explain clearly how the various settlements are reached. The funding approach is agreed in consultation with the devolved Administrations of the rest of the United Kingdom.

On my hon. Friend’s suggestion about the needs-based formula, I can absolutely understand why people and hon. Members think that such an approach would be better. A needs-based formula allocates local government spending across English local authorities, but many hon. Members and different communities consider it to have flaws. That illustrates how there are no easy ways in which we can reform local government funding, whether in relation to local government across English local authorities or in relation to devolved Administrations. The common ground we have in the points made is that any changes should absolutely be approached with real caution over a period of time.

Of course, the Treasury has clear control over the process, as it deals with public spending issues. However, there are avenues through which disputes can be remitted to the Joint Ministerial Committee. Therefore, the Treasury is not always judge and jury. There is absolutely a process through which disputes can be resolved if the Treasury cannot do so. On the involvement of the Office for Budget Responsibility, that organisation is a forecasting rather than a policy-making body. My hon. Friend is right to point out that other countries, such as Australia, have a different approach, but they come with pros and cons. Yes, that authority may be independent, but there is no Minister such as me to stand in Parliament, listen to the issues and respond to them democratically and with some sense of accountability; Australia does not have that in the same way. There are still problems with how that authority operates and questions about whether it allocates funding fairly. Such an approach is not without its challenges.

In conclusion, although we do not plan to change the Barnett formula, we will continue to consider all aspects of public spending, how they operate and how effective they are. As I said, the points made today were highly relevant and interesting, and I have no doubt that the debate will continue over the coming years.

Royal Mail Privatisation

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Mr Dobbin. I am pleased to have secured this timely debate on the implications of the proposed privatisation of Royal Mail for our post office network. There will, of course, be many repercussions if the privatisation goes ahead, but the subject of this debate is, perhaps, the aspect about which the public are currently most concerned.

No other country in the world has separated its mail service from its post office network, and I hope that the Minister will accept that there is genuine concern that this privatisation will have a negative effect on an already vulnerable post office network. Many of the issues that I will raise today have already been raised with the Government during the proceedings of the Postal Services Bill in this House, and I suspect that they will be raised again in the Lords. I have given the Minister notice of what I will say today—I will ask him many questions that have been put to the Government but that have not, as yet, been answered adequately.

We heard many warm words from the Government during the progress of the Bill about their commitment to the post office network, and, indeed, an announcement of a short-term subsidy. However, my contention is that those warm words will not be sufficient to protect our post office network and that the legal framework that the Government are putting forward with a privatised Royal Mail, which will have a legal duty to its shareholders to maximise profits rather than any duty to the general public, provides no guaranteed protection in law for the post office network as we currently know it, and will put our post offices at risk.

We have read in the media that some fear that the privatisation will result in 4,400 post office closures. That figure comes from the fact that the current access criteria mean that we would have a post office network of 7,500 post offices, and we also know that approximately only 4,000 post offices are currently considered to be financially viable. There is, therefore, a great deal of concern that privatisation could lead to the closure of post offices. There is also concern about whether the standard rate for stamps will be able to survive in a uniform way throughout the country, and that there could be a serious deterioration of the service provided, particularly in rural communities, deprived urban areas and in any part of the country where the postal service is expensive. There is a concern that a privatised Royal Mail will cherry-pick the business and that the post office network will be left with what was left.

During the passage of the Bill, the Government were asked to guarantee the size of the network. The Minister will be well aware of those calls being made to him. We currently have 11,905 post offices. The access criteria laid down by the previous Government would, according to Post Office Ltd, mean that there would have to be a minimum of 7,500 post offices. The Government have said, in the course of proceedings, that they are committed to the post office network and would like to see a network of 11,500 post offices. In her evidence, Paula Vennells, the managing director of Post Office Ltd, said:

“What is absolutely important in this new approach is that there will be no closures whatsoever.”––[Official Report, Postal Services Public Bill Committee, 9 November 2010; c. 5, Q6.]

That call has been made repeatedly to the Government in the past few months. I ask the Minister again today whether he agrees with that statement by Paula Vennells and that a central plank of the Government’s policy is that there should not be post office closures, and whether he will undertake to ensure that the size of the network will remain at 11,500 post offices, as opposed to outlets, which is something that I will come on to in more detail later.

When those questions have been put to Ministers, the response has been an explanation of how the post office network operates—that, as we all know, post offices are run by private individuals who may decide that they do not wish to continue in the business for a whole range of reasons and that such decisions may not be in any way connected with Government policy or, indeed, the framework in which those people are operating. We all appreciate that, but we are asking the Government to confirm that their policy will be to create a framework that enables existing post offices to continue. It would assist if we had a specific answer on why legal guarantees would not be helpful. Surely the Minister agrees that it would be helpful to the post office network if he came forward with a legal guarantee on post office numbers, given the huge concern. If he is not willing to do so, will he explain why it is such a priority to get a quick sale—probably to a foreign buyer—but not a priority to find a way to give legal guarantees to our post office network?

We also know that the Government are being pressed by a wide range of organisations to guarantee the inter-business agreement between Royal Mail and the post office network. The National Federation of SubPostmasters, the Communication Workers Union and Consumer Focus, as well as a whole range of other organisations, have made that call and, in particular, are asking that a 10-year contract be entered into by Royal Mail to ensure some kind of security for at least that time. Consumer Focus has said that it is concerned about how few safeguards the current legislation proposes. Andy Burrows, its postal services expert, has said:

“There are few safeguards to keep that contract in the long term. It’s entirely conceivable—though it seems an odd thing to suggest—but several years down the line you could have a post office network where you cannot undertake mail transactions. It would be for Royal Mail to determine which operator—whether it was Post Office Ltd or Tesco or whomever—to offer mail services and there would be no requirement for stamps or parcels. You could see a scenario where Royal Mail looked to cherry pick so Tesco, say, could meet its requirements in urban areas and the Post Office could pick up the slack in rural areas where there isn’t anyone else. And that has very serious implications in terms of the viability and integrity of the network because urban areas typically make money.”

That really goes to the nub of the concerns that many people have about the future of our post office network.

Will the Minister respond to the allegation, which has been made again and again, that many of those who run post offices will view the future of work in a privatised Royal Mail to be so uncertain that they will be more likely to leave the business? The Government must respond to that allegation. There is huge uncertainty about what will happen if Royal Mail is privatised, which is bound to lead to individuals making business decisions that will take them out of the trade.

Will the Minister say what steps the Government would take if a privatised Royal Mail decided to award the work to supermarkets rather than to post offices? I want to know whether the Government would allow that to happen. If Royal Mail were to decide not to award work to post offices but to another organisation or range of organisations, would they allow that to go ahead?

My final request to the Minister—again, it has been put to the Government on many occasions—is that we use the opportunity of the Postal Services Bill to guarantee the access criteria in law, so that there is more certainty about the future. I have already referred to the view that the access criteria guarantee only 7,500 post offices, but even that is subject to uncertainty, given the legal framework.

I ask for all that because our post office network is already so vulnerable. More than 150 post offices closed on a long-term basis over the past year, and 900 are up for sale. Over the past 30 years, the number of post offices has almost halved, and the trend has been consistently downwards, irrespective of which political party or, as now, combination of parties is in power.

As someone who represents many deprived mainland communities, many small towns in areas of unemployment and rural island areas, it is clear is that the public are well aware of the vulnerability of the post office network. They are rightly suspicious of the Government’s assurances. That may be why people express a great deal of concern about the proposal to privatise Royal Mail whenever they are asked about it, whether it is through opinion polls or in other ways. The fear is that post offices will be at risk, particularly in deprived and remote rural communities. The Government may say that there will be no closure programme—indeed, they have said that—but that does not mean there will not be post office closures.

We know that the majority of work for post offices comes from either Royal Mail or the Government, but business from those providers is not secure. Royal Mail provides post offices with about one third of their work, and we are told that it is unthinkable that it would not use the network. However, it is clear that many competitors may be interested in the work, including supermarket chains, PayPoint—they are the two most obvious options—and a range of other providers. Surely it is a real possibility that a privatised Royal Mail would tender the work, either in whole or in part, to the cheapest provider in the future.

The reality is that because of how Royal Mail will be constructed legally, it will be under an obligation to ensure that it gets best value for its shareholders. There will be nothing to make it use post offices to the same extent. As a private company, its duty will be to its shareholders, which would put the work that many post offices currently rely on at risk. It is only common sense to think that more post offices would be in greater financial difficulty and that more of them would find it difficult to justify their existence.

We have heard a great deal about alternative sources of work for post offices. Indeed, the previous Labour Government were doing a considerable amount of work to develop a people’s bank, which was dropped by this Government. Will the Minister explain why the Government are not proceeding with some form of post bank or people’s bank? We would like an explanation as to why they do not accept that local post offices would be on a stronger footing if the post bank work had gone ahead. I also understand that the Department for Work and Pensions green giros contract is under threat. Will he explain why DWP work is not being channelled to the Post Office?

The reality, of course, is that the historic link between Royal Mail and the Post Office means that Royal Mail supports post offices in a range of different ways. The Royal Mail chief executive has said that, in effect, Royal Mail subsidises the post office network by £150 million a year through the central provision of services alone. Obviously, if the two organisations were to separate, that would be another way in which funding and support would be taken away from the network.

The previous Labour Government put substantial funding into the post office network, and this Government have announced a £1.34 billion subsidy, which I welcome, although I have been told that it will not increase the level of annual social subsidy to the post office network. However, my greater concern is that the funding is not guaranteed beyond 2014-15, and, even more, that the Government’s stated policy is that the subsidy will reduce over time. That must give us great concern. I do not know whether post offices will be able to survive in the future.

Does the Minister expect that the number of post offices or outlets will shrink over the coming period? Also, does he believe not only that the number of post offices or outlets will reduce but that the quality and extent of the service operated at post offices will shrink? The Government’s plans for changing the network over the next four years include replacing 2,000 post offices with “essentials” or “locals”, which will provide a more limited range of services, often from a venue such as a shop. I understand that the scheme is designed as a pilot, but many of us will already know from our constituency experience of examples of a Crown post office closing down and the service moving into, perhaps, a local newsagent. It is clear that our constituents feel that the quality and range of the service has decreased, even if it is simply because there is less space in the post office area. There is less ability to take in wheelchairs—the conditions are more cramped. That is a great concern to our constituents.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. There is great potential for a more flexible approach to the format of post office that people want. I have one in my constituency that is in a convenience shop. A point has been opened in the shop itself, so people do not have to wait for post office opening hours. The number of open hours is phenomenally greater, so everyone who wants to cash in their lottery winnings goes to the shop. There are great opportunities, and not everyone needs all the services or wants them at specific restricted times.

[Katy Clark]

There may be some benefits in certain circumstances. The example that I was thinking of is a local one. The small town of Kilwinning in my constituency previously had a spacious Crown post office that was heavily used by the local community. When the service moved into a newsagent, the quality of service experienced by constituents became much worse. However, there may well be other situations that are success stories.

One of the concerns at present is that many of the proposals would actually mean a reduction in the number of hours that postal services will be available in some communities. That is the point that I have put to the Minister. There may be exceptions where the service improves, but my contention, and the evidence from the work that has been done, is that the trend is for the range and quality of services to diminish. The reason for that is the difficulty in making post office services pay, which is why we are having this debate. For public policy reasons, post offices are essential parts of our communities, and we should be finding a framework within which post office success would be most likely.

Related to that, a great deal of concern has been expressed about the network size being affected by the extension of outreach services, which are often provided by a van and often mean a substantial reduction in the hours a postal service is available in a specific community. Instead of having a post office, which would be available all week, a van might come once or twice a week, for a relatively small period. Those vans, or many of the facilities to which the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) has referred, often do not provide the whole range of postal services that might have been available in a more traditional post office. I ask the Minister to respond to the considerable concern expressed about the quality of services provided by some outreach services.

The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, for instance, made submissions to the Government after taking evidence in Scotland on such issues. An extension of such outreach facilities leading to a continuing deterioration of service is a concern. I have to declare an interest, because of the kind of constituency that I represent. I have many remote rural areas in my constituency, in particular the island of Arran, the kind of area for which outreach services are often proposed. As we know from the evidence given by members of the public and by hon. Members, often the view is that the level of service is far less good than that which was previously provided.

Huge concern has been expressed about the universal service obligation and whether a postal service could be maintained in all parts of the country, no matter how remote. What is perhaps more at risk is the continuation of the universal service as a six-day service everywhere and of a uniform affordable price throughout the UK. Can the Minister give an assurance on that continuation and whether there will be legal protection? The proposed legislation, similar to current legislation, allows Ofcom to waive the universal service obligation given exceptional geographic or other conditions. Will the Minister outline when that opt-out would be used? What guidance would be given about when Ofcom is allowed to say that the universal service obligation need not operate?

If the Postal Services Bill becomes an Act, we are creating a legislative framework in which it would be quite possible and highly likely that Royal Mail will move its work in the future. MPs of all political parties are concerned about their local post offices and wish them to survive. I urge the Minster to ensure that we organise our postal services in a way that enables them to have the business to make that a realistic possibility in the future. In particular, I ask that he uses the opportunity of the legislation to ensure that we have a legal framework whereby post offices can continue. There is huge concern that a privatised Royal Mail will operate in a manner that will undermine our post office network. Will the Minister please respond to the points made today and over the past few weeks?

11:23

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) for securing an excellent opportunity to talk about the future of the wonderful post offices that we all love and need and upon which our constituents—in particular, some of our small businesses—are dependent. However, I am surprised that the hon. Lady raised the issue of post offices when the Bill we are talking about and have been debating recently is about Royal Mail. The debate is meant to be about Royal Mail, rather than about post offices, but I was encouraged by the response that the Government gave, indirectly, with regard to post offices, effectively guaranteeing that we would be able to retain post offices, which we all value. I was absolutely delighted.

The other measure in the Bill, which the hon. Lady did not mention but which I find exciting, is the concept of mutualisation. It is a huge opportunity.

[Katy Clark]

There have been many opportunities over the past few weeks to make all sorts of points about Royal Mail privatisation. The debate today is about the implications of Royal Mail privatisation on the post office network. There are genuine concerns. Does the hon. Lady share any of those concerns?

[Anne Marie Morris]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comment but, to be honest, hearing her discussing the concerns about the future of the post offices was very reminiscent of the concerns felt by Opposition Members under the previous Administration. Our concern in opposition, when there were mass closures of post offices, was that the Government of the day had failed to recognise that such post offices were crucial to communities and were providing a social service as much as anything else.

I am delighted that both parties supporting the coalition Government are determined to ensure that post offices have a bright future. I do not share the hon. Lady’s concern about the future of post offices; they are far better off under the new coalition Government than they ever were under the previous Administration.

The hon. Lady made some points about universal delivery, but I am very heartened. It is important. The Government look on it as fundamental and will retain it.

Turning to post offices, we must remember that 99% of the population live within three miles of a post office. In the grand scheme, that is not a bad position to be in. The Government subsidy to non-commercial post offices is currently £150 million, but I am pleased that it will increase to £180 million in the next financial year.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Lady suggesting that a three-mile access criterion would be sufficient? In other words, as long as someone was within three miles of a post office, that would be acceptable. Is that the sort of network of post offices that she envisages?

[Anne Marie Morris]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comment. Clearly, we need to have as good access as we can for every individual. Therefore, we need to look at a good service and a good distribution of post offices. The sort of figures talked about, and where we are now with the number of post offices, will give a good service. What I would like to comment on, and will come to in my contribution, is what more those post offices could do.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I am interested in what my hon. Friend says about the provision of post office services not only to individuals but also to businesses. Businesses in my constituency are concerned about how the post office network can help them in the current economic downturn. Does my hon. Friend have any thoughts on that?

[Anne Marie Morris]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. When we are looking at our small micro-businesses to lead the drive to put the economy back on its feet, post offices have a key role. In my constituency, in the village of Broadhempston, there is a delightful situation. Local volunteers run a small community shop—absolutely an example of the big society—in which they have effectively ensured that the post office can be retained. The challenge—the point made by my hon. Friend—is to ensure that we can grow that service. The shop currently opens in the morning between 9 and 12, but if it opened in the afternoon, it would really be able to offer services to local businesses. I have been looking at that and championing it. Looking at such post offices being able to support small businesses must be the way forward; my hon. Friend’s point is extremely well made.

Post offices are at the heart of the community. With regard to concerns expressed in all parts of the Chamber, post offices need to be able to provide more, not less, to individuals and to small businesses. Indeed, the Federation of Small Businesses has said that it would be an excellent idea to have a dedicated business counter or business advertising. Could not such post offices provide meeting rooms or wi-fi hot spots? As discussed, we could be moving towards providing banking facilities.

The opportunity for post offices is enormous, and I am delighted that they have that opportunity. The big society and the overall push to help small businesses should make that opportunity a reality. Nineteen per cent. of small businesses visit post offices on a daily basis, and 47% visit twice a week. That is excellent news. As I said earlier, mutualisation could be the way to make things possible. I have found a real will to work together in the community, whether that is the business community or the community within a geographical area. Mutualisation is a real opportunity and it may be the solution to the position in Broadhempston.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I am a supporter of mutualisation. Many people, however, are concerned that from mutualisation comes demutualisation. Would the hon. Lady be in favour of building a way of preventing demutualisation into any plans for mutualisation, as far as that is possible? People are wary of mutualisation given some of the experiences of the past 20 years concerning building societies and other mutual organisations.

[Anne Marie Morris]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but the devil is not in the legislation but in the detail and particular circumstances. I am not a great believer in regulating and legislating; I believe in the free market. It is right to empower communities and businesses, but not to tell them how to do what they do.

In conclusion, I would be delighted to see the Government look carefully at what post offices can do, and then empower them so that it happens, perhaps by looking at how we can improve the number of Government services in post offices. At the moment, people cannot always sort out vehicle taxation at post offices or pay their utility bills—they might not know that they can pay in a post office because it does not say so on the back of the bill. There are things that the Government could do to ensure that where it is financially sensible, more services are provided through the local post office network. There is much that could be done by the business community, and I commend to the Minister the suggestions made by the Federation of Small Businesses.

11:32

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I too congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on securing this important debate. We both have rural constituencies that contain islands, and post offices are important in such rural communities.

Post offices are important in the communities they serve. No other retail outlet has such a range of shops that cover the rural parts of the country to the same extent as the post office network. Post offices provide an important social function and assist vulnerable people with help and advice. I am pleased that the Government have recognised that by making a big investment in the post office network, and I am delighted by the guarantee of a no closure programme, which is a complete reverse from the position of the previous Government. During the previous Parliament, debates such as this happened practically every fortnight as hon. Members tried to stop post offices being closed. This debate takes place in a completely different atmosphere as we have a Government who recognise the importance of post offices and back that up with investment.

For post offices to stay open, not having a closure programme is not enough. It is essential that as small businesses, post offices remain profitable for the sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress. Changing lifestyles mean that what was once one of the core businesses of post offices—people taking their pension book to collect their pension—is no longer so important. When people retire, they are more likely to have their pension paid directly into their bank account, as that is what currently happens to the vast majority of people of working age. Therefore, it is inevitable that business will decline. One postmaster put it to me succinctly when he said, “Many of my customers are dying off.” When people retire they do not collect their pension at the post office to the same extent, and that service must be replaced by other Government work.

It is essential that Departments, the devolved Administrations, local government and public bodies give work to post offices. Otherwise, in the long term we will see a gradual decline. There is no immediate threat to post offices, but unless the Government provide commitments to more work, in 10 or 20 years’ time we will see the gradual decline of post offices.

I am pleased to note the Government’s stated policy of giving more work to post offices, but it is vitally important that every Department follows that policy with action. Often, giving a contract to the Post Office will cost more than giving it to another provider, but that is because of the social benefits of post offices. Post office staff will take time to explain things to vulnerable people and give them help and advice that they would not often get in a supermarket or filling station. One can imagine the impatient queue at a filling station if people wanted to pay for their petrol but the assistant was taking time to give advice to an elderly person. Such advice is provided in a post office, but I cannot see it happening to the same extent in a filling station or supermarket. I hope that Departments will not be tempted to save money from their budgets by taking contracts from the Post Office.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says but when it comes to the crunch, sometimes a local post office will close, no matter how unfortunate that is. One of the biggest areas of growth is in supermarkets, whether metro stores or small stores. If a new supermarket contains a post office, would that not keep some of the services, even if they are in a supermarket?

[Mr Reid]

I agree with my hon. Friend; there is no problem with a post office being located in a supermarket and I was not saying that was a bad idea. My point is that a different type of outlet—PayPoint, for example—could be in a filling station but not in a dedicated post office that is part of a supermarket or filling station. In such situations, a person will not receive the same help and advice as they would in a post office located in a supermarket. I have no problem with a post office being located in another outlet—in my constituency, almost every post office is within a shop, filling station or supermarket. However, I would be concerned if the contract for benefit cheques was given to PayPoint, for example, because if an elderly person is in the same queue as people who are waiting to pay for their petrol, they might not receive the same quality of advice and help. A post office in another outlet is great, but if the facilities are simply part of that other outlet they will not offer the same social benefits to the customer.

The benefit cheque contract of the Department for Work and Pensions is for paying pensions and benefits to vulnerable people who are considered unable to use the Post Office card account. That contract was put out for renewal by the previous Government and I understand that the Post Office and PayPoint have bid for it. I hope that once the DWP has weighed up all the factors involved, including social factors and access criteria, it will keep the contract with the Post Office. PayPoint has a large number of outlets, including in my constituency, but nearly all those outlets are in towns and it does not have the same coverage throughout rural areas and islands as the Post Office.

If the contract were taken away from the Post Office and given to PayPoint, it would mean that on several of the islands in my constituency, there would be nowhere for people to cash the cheques. Also, in the rural areas of north Argyll, there would be nowhere for people to cash their cheques, because although there are plenty of PayPoint outlets in Oban, once people go outside Oban, they have to go all the way to Ballachulish or Inveraray to find another PayPoint outlet. It is therefore very important both for social reasons and for access reasons that the contract remains with the Post Office. I hope that the Minister will go away from today’s debate and knock on the door of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to tell him just that.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary that the Government on the one hand are giving much-needed subsidies to the network—£1.3 billion over four years; £50,000 per location per year—yet on the other hand are taking away some of the contracts? No other shareholder or business would act in that way. It just is not joined up.

[Mr Reid]

I hope that the Government will not react in the way that my hon. Friend fears. I share his concerns, however. What worries me—I hope that these fears are ungrounded—is that there may be silo thinking within the Government. Clearly, in these very difficult financial times, with Departments having to make huge savings, it must be very tempting for Ministers to go for the cheapest contract, but I hope that they will resist that temptation, that there will be joined-up thinking in the Government and that the Post Office will be given work because of the good service that it provides. I hope that that will be the case for social reasons and because of the access provided by having a network that is unmatched throughout rural Britain and on many of the islands in my constituency.

Let us consider other Government work. When I tour my constituency, as I do every summer, one bone of contention that keeps cropping up in the rural parts of it is vehicle excise duty. Vehicle excise duty can be renewed only in certain post offices. I understand that that is because the Department for Transport decided the number of outlets that it wanted. However, it means that people living in rural areas must go into the town if they want to renew their car tax at a post office. Clearly, the temptation, then, is to use the internet, and if people do that, the work is lost to the Post Office completely.

My understanding is that the computer system is the same in all post offices, so there seems to be no reason why vehicle excise duty cannot be paid in any post office. Again, I hope that the Minister takes that point away from the debate and has a word with his ministerial colleagues in the Department for Transport, so that when that contract comes up for renewal, the restriction on the number of outlets can be removed.

I also want to refer to the BBC. As we all know, during the last Parliament, the contract for renewing TV licences was taken away from the Post Office and given to PayPoint. When Ministers are questioned on that, we just get indignant responses that the BBC is not part of the Government. However, it is a public body, and I hope that the Government are explaining to all public bodies the benefits of the Post Office and the Government policy of supporting the Post Office, and are encouraging the BBC and other public bodies to use the Post Office.

I was delighted with the commitment given during last week’s Report stage of the Postal Services Bill by the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), who is responsible for postal services, that Post Office Ltd and Royal Mail would sign an inter-business agreement for the longest legally permissible period before they become separate companies. That is important to give post offices time to adapt to being part of a separate company from Royal Mail.

I do not share the concerns of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran about Royal Mail in the long run taking business away from post offices. I do not believe that supermarkets or other shops could replicate what the post office does. Post office staff undergo a tremendous amount of training. There is also the computer system. One of the hon. Lady’s fears was that in urban areas, supermarkets would take over the contract, but in rural areas the post office would be responsible. That would mean two separate computer systems and training other staff. I simply do not see that happening. As I said in response to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), I see no problem with post offices being located in supermarkets, but I simply cannot see the benefits to a privatised Royal Mail of having a different arrangement in towns compared with rural areas. Many post offices are located in supermarkets. In the towns in my constituency, that is the norm and I see no problem with it, but I simply cannot see a situation in which there would be separate arrangements in towns and villages.

[Nia Griffith]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned training, the quality of post office staff and the different reception that people may have in supermarkets and garages. Does he not think that it is precisely that type of thing that makes it possible for supermarkets and high street chains to undercut the price that the Post Office will probably be tendering at, and that therefore there is a real danger that the Royal Mail could switch to a cheaper option, which might be a much poorer-quality service? It may even be a loss leader for some of the big chains.

[Mr Reid]

I simply do not see that happening, because those organisations would have to develop a computer system and train staff. At the moment, in the towns in my constituency, the post offices tend to be located within supermarkets. I do not see any benefit to Royal Mail or a supermarket from developing its own system rather than encouraging a post office to be located in the supermarket.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to speak. I find that exactly the opposite happens in connection with supermarkets. When I was fighting to save a post office near my own home in my constituency, the real problem was that Tesco did not want a post office on its premises because it took up too much space. We had to move the post office and have a community arrangement a few doors down. The essential problem is that supermarkets will not necessarily want a post office on their premises. I therefore agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the post office network is safe and the relationship that it has with Royal Mail will continue.

[Mr Reid]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree: I think that the post office network is safe. The attitude of the supermarkets in his constituency and mine just shows the diversity that we have in Britain. He mentioned space. One thing that my constituency does not lack is space; there is plenty of it, but I can understand that in a crowded urban area, the situation might be very different.

The reason why I came along to the debate this morning was to say that what is very important to the long-term future of our post offices is more Government work and the Government acting in a joined-up fashion, with all Departments being encouraged to give work to the Post Office. I hope that the Minister, in his reply to the debate, will assure us that that is what the Government are doing, that there is joined-up thinking in the Government and that work is in progress to ensure that more Government work is given to post offices, because post offices are in an ideal position to be a front office for Government throughout the country.

11:48

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) has rightly initiated this debate today. It is important that we ensure that the Post Office is protected and that legislation such as the Postal Services Bill does not have an undue effect. She asked many pertinent questions of the Minister and, like her, I look forward to hearing the answers.

Having worked for some years on issues within the remit of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, under its various names, I have attended numerous statutory instrument Committees whereby the Government of whom the hon. Lady was a supporter put in subsidies year after year to support the Post Office. That was absolutely right. However, what happened under the previous Government was that they managed a decline. The very important social value of the Post Office has been recognised. Nevertheless, it has not necessarily been given the legs to be able to compete in a changing business situation in this country.

The new coalition Government are taking a different approach to the Post Office. We have no less desire than the Labour party to ensure the Post Office’s future, but we are trying to adopt a different approach to enable the Post Office to stand on its own two feet. Several hon. Members have mentioned the £1.34 billion that the Government have committed to protect the network of 11,500 post offices, which we have said will remain. That is considerably better than managing the Post Office’s decline. We do not want any more post office closures. We want the Post Office to remain in public ownership, unless it goes for mutualisation itself.

The hon. Lady mentioned the inter-business agreement at a little length. The chairman of Royal Mail has said that such an agreement will be drawn up for the maximum legal period before any sale. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) raised the issue in a new clause for the Postal Services Bill. It was argued at some length that a long period would benefit the Post Office, and I totally agree. Where I perhaps disagree, however, is on the practicalities. We are talking about an agreement between two commercial companies, which need the flexibility to negotiate an inter-business agreement that benefits both; if it does not, it will not necessarily hold together. There was also some discussion of how such an arrangement could be implemented, and the conclusion was that it would not necessarily work well under existing EU law.

The hon. Lady mentioned the post bank, and I, too, was disappointed that we did not go down that path. However, we have secured the ability for people belonging to virtually every bank in the United Kingdom to conduct transactions. That is a very good second best, which will at least make sure that the banks start to play ball and respond to the need to be more flexible in conducting their financial transactions.

What about the Post Office’s future? My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) mentioned some of the losses that we have seen, as well as some of the potential losses. A little while back, the Post Office card account went out to competitive tender. Lord Mandelson, who had just been appointed Business Secretary, stopped that straight away. I thought, “Brilliant.” We really cannot afford to lose the Post Office card account in that way. Like my hon. Friend, I hope that it will continue.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The hon. Lady mentions the Post Office card account, and those who are active in promoting financial inclusion have suggested that introducing more functions into the Post Office card account might be one way of assisting people who do not have access to mainstream banking. Another issue, which is much discussed, and about which I have heard a lot of discussion since I arrived in the House in May, is the possibility of linking credit unions with post offices. I have to say that there has been more discussion than actual tying things down, and I understand that there are cost issues, but does the hon. Lady agree that those two additional functions would be useful for post offices and contribute to the financial inclusion agenda?

[Lorely Burt]

I certainly agree that it is important that we extend the range of services available to people who do not have a traditional bank account, and the Government are actively considering how that can best be done. I certainly applaud the work of credit unions, although I am not entirely sure whether they have sufficient coverage and continuity to form a national service at this stage. However, the Government are actively considering these matters, and we are doing all we can to reach a practical solution on increasing financial inclusion for those who are unbanked.

The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) described all sorts of different ways of introducing flexibility, and the Government are fizzing with ideas about how we can be more flexible. We can adapt to the changing commercial landscape and to the internet. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute mentioned vehicle excise duty licences, and I am sorry to say that I am guilty of using the internet to renew mine, because it takes five minutes. The point, however, is that there are many other functions that post offices can carry out; they do not have to exist in their traditional format to deliver a postal service to their customers.

I am very hopeful that some of the pilots that are being undertaken will prove successful. It is good that schemes are being piloted, because we can iron out some of the problems that might otherwise ensue. We will take the best ways of responding to the changing landscape. We do not want to continue giving subsidies to the Post Office; we want it to be vibrant, commercial and profitable and to stand on its own two feet.

11:57

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I want to add just a couple of quick points to what has been said.

To put these issues in context, there were 20,000 post offices a decade ago; now, there are fewer than 12,000. The Government have committed to keeping 11,500 of those open for the next four years. I do not share the confidence of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) that the network will be stable for the next decade. Unless action is taken, it will be stable for only the next four years—that is, for the period of the subsidy that is currently going through. Although I welcome the £1.3 billion subsidy in terms of keeping the network open, 7,000 of the 11,500 post offices that remain are loss making. Unless that is fixed, the prognosis cannot be positive. We have 7,000 loss-making post offices, and that is with the inter-business agreement in place. It is worth telling Opposition Members that. The issue is not the IBA, but sustainability over the medium term.

Will the Minister answer two questions? I want to know more about the modernisation programme that will be put in place over the next four years, which involves something like £350 million. I also reiterate the point that Members on both sides have made about joined-up thinking in the Government. It is not sustainable that we are, on the one hand, investing millions of pounds in trying to make the network better, albeit in ways I am not sure I fully understand, while Departments are, on the other hand, tendering business in a way that no commercial organisation would. I have heard EU legislation being used as an excuse, but I do not accept that and think that the argument should be tested. I do not intend to reiterate the types of Government business that are being removed or that could be removed, but it is anomalous that so much work is potentially threatened, while on the other hand we are spending £50,000 per location, per year, to keep post offices open.

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

I shall be particularly interested to hear from the Minister, in relation to the modernisation programme, about who is accountable for its success and what the measures of its success will be. In particular, what is his estimate of the number of post offices that will be in profit after the four-year period has elapsed? At the moment, the number is 4,000. We are to spend £300 million on modernisation. What number would he, at this stage when the money is being committed, expect to be viable after the modernisation programme? The corollary to the answer to that question is what level of subsidy the Government and the Minister expect to be payable after four years to maintain, for the purpose of argument, 11,500 post offices.

12:00

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on securing this debate on a very important topic. Her worries and concerns are shared by many hon. Members on both sides of the House, as we saw from the number who attended and participated on Report in the debate on the amendment to guarantee a 10-year inter-business agreement.

Post offices are at the heart of our communities and are well loved by the people they serve. Hon. Members will remember the postcard campaign lobbying MPs to keep the Post Office card account; many were contacted by more constituents on that issue than on any other, before or since. They received cards from constituents who used Post Office card accounts, and from people who did not have one but who realised the value of the facility to other members of the community and the account’s value to the post office network, because of the work it brought in, directly and indirectly, through increased footfall in post offices and increased business for the corner or village shop where the post office was situated.

Consumers and sub-postmasters alike recognise that any drop in post office business or footfall could have an impact on the economic viability of the post office or village shop. Yet the Government are complacent about the potential loss to the post office network of some 37% of its current business. The loss of all or even some of that business will inevitably mean a dramatic reshaping of the post office network on an unprecedented scale. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) has not explained that complacency. He has hidden behind some potential barriers, which he seems unwilling to try to shift and which may be more a figment of his imagination than a reality. I hope that the Minister will today be able to give us a better explanation for that complacency.

The Under-Secretary did not tell us, either in Committee or on Report, about any detailed work or discussions that have taken place to secure future Royal Mail business for the post office network. There are many ways in which that might be achieved, but I shall concentrate my remarks on three of them, namely the inclusion of a specific number of access points in the Bill, the inclusion of an inter-business agreement in the Bill and other ways of securing an inter-business agreement. In Committee, the Under-Secretary steadfastly refused to consider any mechanism to protect the post office network or the number of outlets where consumers can access post office services. One of the issues that we debated at length in Committee was including in the Postal Services Bill measures to guarantee the number and geographical spread of access points to postal services, which would guarantee the public a number of outlets across the country to post parcels or register letters. Without that guarantee of a specific number of outlets to serve consumers, there will be nothing to stop a privatised Royal Mail from drastically cutting the number of outlets, and limiting them to the larger centres only, whether through high street chains or part of the post office network.

[Mr Reid]

Under the Bill, Ofcom has a duty to ensure that there are enough access points to meet users’ reasonable needs. Surely that is the guarantee. The Post Office will either remain in Government hands or it will be mutualised, so the Government have a role there. The regulator has a role in ensuring enough access points—that is post offices.

[Nia Griffith]

If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully, he will see that there is much flexibility in the Bill about what can be changed by the regulator and where things can be moved to, so the guarantee is not robust.

Returning to putting more robust access criteria in the Bill, if that does not happen consumers will have to travel much further to access Royal Mail postal services, and inevitably those who have least access to transport will miss out—those who do not have cars and those who are served by an infrequent bus service or by no bus service at all. A reduction in the number of access points would also have a negative impact on small businesses in rural areas that make frequent use of the parcel service and whose costs, both in fuel and time, would increase significantly if they had to travel many extra miles to use postal services. There is nothing to stop the Government including in the Bill that vital guarantee for consumers. Only a simple guarantee of a number of access points similar to the current number of post offices would ensure that consumers would continue to have access to the same sort of availability of counter services as they enjoy at present.

[Mr Reid]

Legislating for a specific number of post offices does not help, because they could all be moved into cities. The problem is writing the requirement for a spread of post offices into legislation. The previous Government’s access criteria could, as we know, be satisfied by closing 4,000 post offices, so the difficulty is writing the spread into legislation. No one—neither the official Opposition nor Back Benchers—tabled such an amendment on Report, because devising the formula is impossible.

[Nia Griffith]

The hon. Gentleman rightly mentions geographical spread, which is important. Provision should be made for it. Perhaps we should look to the Australian model. There it is guaranteed that 90% of the urban population will have a post office within 2.5 km; and almost unbelievably in such a large continent it is guaranteed that 85% of the rural population will have a post office within 7.5 km. If they can manage that in Australia, we could introduce a guarantee that is much more robust than what we now have. The irony is that, if Deutsche Post were to purchase Royal Mail, consumers here could have a reduced service, while they contributed to the profits of a company which must provide a specified number of outlets in its own country. In other words, we could have a poorer service here, while propping up a better service in Germany—a scenario we might associate more with 19th-century colonialism than modern Britain.

The Under-Secretary did not give convincing answers on Report about what exactly the legal obstacles are to the inclusion in the Bill of a guarantee of an inter-business agreement. He did not tell us about any legal precedents on which he was drawing, or what research his team has done on any relevant challenges in EU law.

The Under-Secretary has also failed to tell us about options outside the Bill itself. Currently both Royal Mail and the post office network are in public ownership. Both the chief executive and the chairman of Royal Mail speak favourably of the post office network. They recognise the respect it commands, the trust it enjoys in our communities and its value as a business partner. What, therefore, is preventing the signing of a new inter-business agreement now, while Royal Mail is still in public ownership? I am not now talking about a new clause in the Bill, but a new business agreement: an agreement that goes beyond the end of the current inter-business agreement, which could run out within a couple of years of privatisation, depending on the time scale, and that lasts for an additional 10 years. Has the Minister explored that possibility with Royal Mail? What would be the legal difference between an inter-business agreement with just a couple of years to run and one that was to last five or 10 years? Has he sought to capitalise on the warm words of Moya Greene and Donald Brydon about the post office network? Has he had any talks about an extended IBA between Royal Mail and the post office network?

I am sure that the Minister does not need to be reminded that Royal Mail is currently in public ownership. He must realise how serious the loss of business would be to the post office network. Even though any decision by Royal Mail to abandon the Post Office will be taken after privatisation, and therefore will technically not be a Government decision, he knows that the people of this country will not be slow to make the connection between the privatisation of Royal Mail and the demise of their local post offices.

The pity is that the Minister does not seem to want to take specific action. He seems to think that he can rely on warm words to guarantee Royal Mail business for the Post Office, but people are wary of warm words. There have been warm words about no rise in VAT and warm words about no increase in tuition fees—people are becoming very cynical about warm words. No shrewd business person would trust future business security to warm words. Surely, in his enthusiasm to privatise Royal Mail, the Minister has not overlooked the fact that it is currently in public ownership, and that he therefore has every opportunity to influence the way forward and to negotiate a longer IBA, here and now, before proceeding to privatisation.

Indeed, the Under-Secretary told us on Report that the Government

“as shareholders, will ensure that the commitment that Royal Mail made in its evidence to the Public Bill Committee—that it would conclude the longest legally permissible contract before separation—is fulfilled.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 357.]

I ask the Minister to enlighten us about what talks he or the Under-Secretary have had with Royal Mail about drawing up a longer IBA with the Post Office before privatisation. What was meant by the “longest legally permissible contract”? Is there a legal limit on such a contract? If so, what is it? As I said in last week’s debate, purchasers take over existing contracts and responsibilities in all sorts of takeovers, and such arrangements can be long-lasting.

The hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) rightly questions what joined-up thinking has taken place on the subsidy. In our debate on the subsidy on 20 December, I said that the taxpayer is paying a large subsidy to the post office network, of which only 48% is necessary to continue the subsidy that Labour introduced to maintain the operation of the current post office network. We have been told that the remainder includes money to convert post offices to the post office local model, which involves paying the sub-postmaster by transaction, but that has been criticised by the Rural Shops Alliance, which questions why anyone would want to work longer hours for less income. It predicts difficulty in attracting new entrants to the post office local model; indeed, a similar pilot in Linlithgow ended with the shopkeeper saying that it simply was not worth his while to provide post office services.

Taxpayers will rightly ask what is the point of so much taxpayers’ money going into the post office network, particularly when they are seeing savage cuts in other services, and given that the Government are doing absolutely nothing to help secure the 37% of post office income that comes from the IBA with Royal Mail.

[David Mowat]

The Opposition continually talk about the IBA as if it were some kind of nirvana. Even with it in place, 7,500 post offices in the network are making a loss. At least the Minister has proposals on fixing that and on modernisation. Do the Opposition have any proposals other than the status quo?

[Nia Griffith]

Frankly, despite the Government’s fine words, the Post Office has no new Government contracts and no new streams of business, and it faces the possibility of losing all its Royal Mail business. Taxpayers will ask why they have to pay for that.

Taxpayers understand the idea of investment that brings returns and the value of business start-up funds, which can help to launch new businesses that subsequently stand on their own two feet, and they accept the need for some subsidy to make the network a truly nationwide service. However, if the post office network does not provide nationwide access to postal services or develop new business streams to improve its viability, the taxpayer may well ask what is the point of allocating £1.34 billion to the post office network. The taxpayer has every right to ask what steps the Minister is taking to ensure that the Post Office continues to do for Royal Mail business that provides 37% of its income.

In its recent report, the Scottish Affairs Committee stated that:

“we recommend the Government take a more proactive approach to facilitating a long and robust IBA, through removing any obstacles: practical, legal or otherwise that may exist. Ideally, a ten year agreement should be reached prior to any sale of Royal Mail. We understand that this may affect the marketability of Royal Mail, but it is essential to the sustainability of Postal Services in Scotland. It is in everyone’s interest”.

Members on both sides have stressed time and again the valuable social role of the post office, and the Government’s recent subsidy allocation suggests that it is a role worth paying for.

Will the Minister say whether concern about the marketability of Royal Mail is the reason for the Government’s reluctance to pursue a robust IBA? If so, does he consider potential diminished marketability to be a price worth paying when it comes to guaranteeing the future of 37% of the post office network’s business? What analysis have the Government made of the cost of a presumed lower price for Royal Mail with a robust IBA with the Post Office, and the cost of continued subsidy of the post office network? Once Royal Mail is privatised and possibly sold to a foreign owner without a long-term IBA in place, it will be too late to insist on one.

The Government will not be able to insist on Royal Mail using the Post Office. They will not be able to do what Lord Mandelson did. They have the chance here and now. I want to know whether they are going to take it.

12:16

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

It is always a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. It is a delight, also, to welcome a debate on the implications for the post office network of the privatisation of Royal Mail, and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on securing it. She introduced the subject with typical courtesy and clarity. I know that her concerns are widely felt, and I want to be as responsive and sensitive to those concerns as I can. I shall try to deal with as many of the points raised in debate as possible; I hope that hon. Members will not mind if I am not as generous as usual in taking interventions, as we have a lot of ground to cover.

The matter has been extensively debated over recent weeks, including during the Committee stage of the Postal Services Bill, the oral evidence session of the Scottish Affairs Committee, the Third Reading of the Bill last Wednesday and at Business, Innovation and Skills Question Time. Indeed, the matter has been aired in a number of forums. I fully appreciate that people are concerned about the future of the post office network. In essence, this debate focuses on that subject, and I shall try to restrict my remarks to that, for understandable reasons.

I start by putting the matter in context. I do not mean the economic context—the fact that the Government inherited the largest peacetime deficit in our history, and that the state is borrowing one pound in every four that it spends and is paying only the interest on the nation’s debt, which costs £43 billion each year, or about £120 million a day. That is not entirely relevant, Mr Hollobone, and you would not want me to dwell on it, but it needs to be said. I mean the context that surrounds Royal Mail—the need to invest in Royal Mail, to update it and to make it a business that can compete in an increasingly complex international scene.

As the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) said, social change and the way in which people access, exchange and use information are having an impact on post offices and Royal Mail, as has the increasingly competitive nature of the marketplace. In order to get that investment, the Government needed to think afresh about the ownership of Royal Mail. That is widely acknowledged. I put on record the fact that that the previous Government were indeed considering the matter, and introduced a Bill in the Lords. Had they been re-elected, I have no doubt that we would be having a debate in Government time about the future of Royal Mail, but on a different set of assumptions about its ownership.

The context is one of a need for change, and a need for fresh ideas about how to guarantee a strong future for Royal Mail. In that spirit, I do not want to dwell too much on the previous Government’s record, but it would be remiss of me not to say that between 1997 and 2010, about 7,000 post offices closed, 5,000 of which were in two Government-funded closure programmes in 2003-05 and 2007-09. Government Members should not be expected to take too many lessons from the Opposition.

I do not want to be excessively partisan or to get into an argument about this, but the Government value post offices. We understand their social and cultural value as well as their utility. As constituency Members, we have fought for them to be retained up and down the land, so we have nothing to be embarrassed about in those terms. It is in that spirit that this Government approach the subject of post offices and make it clear there will be no further post office closure programme. That is enough of my partisan points; I just felt that it was important to put them on the record.

Let me make 10 points to kick things off, then I will try to deal with the points that have been raised in the debate. First, the Government have made it absolutely clear that the Post Office is not for sale. Secondly, we recognise that the Post Office is a unique national asset, so there will be no repeat of the closure programmes of the past. Thirdly, we have committed £1.34 billion to the Post Office for it to modernise its network and safeguard its future, thus making it a stronger partner for Royal Mail. Fourthly, the Bill before Parliament proposes to separate Post Office Ltd from the Royal Mail Group, thus allowing the Post Office to focus more attention on developing its business. It also allows for the possible future mutualisation of Post Office Ltd.

Fifthly, under a mutual structure, the ownership and running of the post office network could be handed over to employees, sub-postmasters and communities. Sixthly, the Government are committed to secure a sustainable future for the Post Office and we want it to become a genuine front office for Government at both a national and local level. Seventhly, we will support the expansion of accessible and affordable personal financial services that are available through the post office. Eighthly, we will support the greater involvement of local authorities in planning and delivering local post office provision.

Ninthly, the Government fully share hon. Members’ laudable interest in ensuring a strong commercial relationship between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd, but we do not share the view that legislating for a contract of between five and 20 years is the way to achieve our shared objective. To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), it is not just that that would make Royal Mail less saleable—although it might—but that it would be legally challenged under competition law and possibly internationally, too. I agree that it is important that the arrangements between Royal Mail and the Post Office are as secure as they can be, and I will return to that point and the particular question that she raised in a moment.

Lastly, as the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), made clear last week, stamps will continue to be issued in the same way.

[Anne Marie Morris]

I am delighted to hear the Minister’s comments about stamps, but I am concerned about those wonderful red pillar boxes and the monogram. Will the Minister confirm that they will also be protected?

[Mr Hayes]

I was about to say that stamps will continue to bear the sovereign’s head, which is right and proper. I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I share her view; it is important that we retain the iconic pillar box with the Royal monogram on. That is something that the Government will consider. I can say no more at this stage, but I know that my hon. Friend will want to take up that point and see what can be done.

In evidence to the Postal Services Bill Committee over recent weeks, there has been strong backing for the separation of Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd. I noted that no one made a case against that today. As I said, it was, I think, accepted by most Members in this House. They are different businesses that will benefit from focusing on different challenges. In his evidence to the Committee, Richard Hooper of Consumer Focus and Postcomm supported the separation of the ownership of the businesses.

In her evidence to the Committee, Moya Greene, chief executive of Royal Mail, said that it would be unthinkable not always to have a strong relationship between the Post Office and Royal Mail. To underline that point, Donald Brydon, Royal Mail’s chairman, pledged in his evidence that before any privatisation of Royal Mail could take place, a continued long-term commercial contract will be in place between the two businesses for the longest duration that is legally permissible—a point that was picked up by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid). Such a pledge provides a reassurance about the marriage between the two, which is essential to maintaining the post office network that we all feel so strongly about. This is done not for sentimental reasons, but because it makes good commercial sense. The post office network has an unparalleled reach and a very strong brand. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) said, we can be optimistic about the relationship. A stronger Royal Mail is more likely to secure the future of many more post offices. If we do not take the necessary radical steps to support and invest in Royal Mail, post offices will be at risk. That is something that we can look to with confidence, based on the belief that post offices not only provide important services, but are at the hub of local communities. The post office in my own village of Moulton, which is run by Gary and Jane, does an excellent job not just providing postal services but as a centre for all kinds of activities in the village. It is a shop, too, and provides a valuable local service.

As a representative of a rural constituency, I understand some of the concerns expressed by other rural colleagues. We heard from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran that there are concerns about the spread of the network—the universality. Let me make it clear that in terms of universality, the Bill will create a fundamental duty at the heart of the legislation for a six-day per week collection and delivery of letters at uniform and affordable prices. To do that, we need a service that is spread across the whole nation and not a partial service; we are committed to that and I personally feel very strongly about it.

It is important to say that the future success of the post office network will depend on its providing a fuller and wider range of services. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) says about cost and subsidy. We can deal with that by allowing post offices to do more, thus ensuring that they can be profitable businesses. We are looking at a range of additional services—both local government and national Government services—that post offices can provide. Post offices can act as a front line for those clients or users that need to do things in their community in a way that is accessible and convenient. We are piloting a range of services that post offices can provide and, as a result of this debate, we will look at other things that Government can do to make the post office network more viable, commercial and profitable. I know that my hon. Friend is anxious about that and I understand why.

However, there will always be small rural post offices, perhaps in more remote communities, that will find it very hard to operate without subsidy. I do not have a problem with that. Post offices are so culturally and socially important that we need to take that on board. Certainly, all those that can be profitable should be profitable.

[David Mowat]

After the modernisation programme, how many post offices does the Minister think will be self-sufficient?

[Mr Hayes]

As part of the recent £1.34 billion funding package, there is a legally binding commitment to a minimum number of post offices—the Post Office is required to provide a network of at least 11,500 branches. As I have said, there will be no closure programme under this Government. I am confident that many more post offices can be made profitable, but I will not speculate on which post offices will take up which services in which locations; my hon. Friend can hardly expect me to do that.

I have just time to say a word about demutualisation, which was raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore). Demutualisation is not something that we see happening; indeed it will be specifically prohibited.

A better future for Royal Mail means a brighter future for post offices. This Government seek that brighter future and will deliver it; nothing less will do.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. I thank all the Members who took part in that most interesting debate and ask all those who are leaving to do so quickly and quietly.

Trailers (EU Proposals)

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Westminster Hall

12:30

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone. It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship.

Although talking about the height of trailers does not sound too exciting, the new proposal from the European Commission to limit the height of trailers to 4 metres will have a detrimental effect on the British haulage sector, on our environment and on every person who uses our already crowded roads. One of my constituents, Robin Allen, contacted me towards the end of last year to ask me to raise the issue in this House, hopefully to stir up some support for our country’s hauliers.

Like many people, at first I did not realise the potential impact of the proposed legislation. Of the EU member states, 20 out of 25 have a 4-metre height restriction on trailers for safety reasons. The proposal from the European Commission aims to bring the UK and four other member states into line with the majority. It is my personal view that this proposal demonstrates the unnecessary work of the European Commission, which makes regulations for regulation’s sake.

The UK’s road infrastructure can accommodate trailers that are up to 4.9 metres high and there is currently no limit in Britain on the height that a trailer can be; the only restriction is whether a trailer can pass under bridges here. People might think that a reduction of 90 cm will not make much difference, but, as the excellent report by Professor Alan McKinnon, “Britain without Double-deck Lorries”, demonstrates, this proposal will have a massive impact on Britain’s haulage industry.

Professor McKinnon suggests that, if the height of lorries is restricted, haulage companies will have to increase their fleet size just to accommodate the same load capacity, and it will cost an extra £387 million to distribute the same amount of goods. Double-deck lorries, or lorries over 4 metres in height, cost roughly 10% more money to operate than other lorries, due to their size. Nevertheless, it would cost a haulage company more money to have fewer double-deck lorries and to increase the size of its fleet. Any extra cost would inevitably have a huge impact on the ability of smaller firms to remain competitive, thus resulting in cuts in employment in the sector. As there are several haulage firms in my constituency, I am particularly concerned for their viability, given all the other challenges that they face, such as rising fuel prices and the rise in VAT.

Professor McKinnon’s research suggests that the proposed legislation would result in a 5.5% increase in the number of lorries on Britain’s roads. That would mean more wear and tear on our roads—the previous Government’s economic record already makes it difficult to keep on top of that issue. The increase in the number of lorries using our roads and the resulting damage to our roads would lead to more traffic and more traffic jams. In turn, that would mean higher transport costs and higher costs for goods in the shops, along with increased stress and inconvenience for drivers.

Finally, there is the issue of the impact on our environment; it is probably not the main concern of Britain’s haulage firms, but in my view it is equally important. If in 2008 we had replaced all double-deck vehicles with single-deck ones, the total amount of fuel consumed since 2008 would have increased from 190 million litres of fuel to 342 million litres, which is an 80% increase in fuel consumption. With carbon dioxide directly linked to fuel consumption, it has been predicted that that increase in fuel consumption would increase CO₂ emissions from 0.5 million tonnes to 0.9 million tonnes a year, which relates to a 5.3% increase in the amount of CO₂ emitted by articulated lorries on British roads.

Although the concerns that I have expressed are paramount, I am also concerned by the way in which the European Commission has conducted itself on this issue. The proposal on page 49 of version two of the working paper of the “Fl JPD PE Masses and Dimensions” document is registered for “restricted circulation”, and it is not at all easy to track down. In fact, it took a lot of lateral thinking and persuasion by my staff to finally see a copy. It concerns me that, given the impact this proposal will have on British haulage, this document is being hidden away, despite its being well known within the haulage industry.

Perhaps my lack of trust in the openness of Europe is getting the better of me, but I believe that the European Commission would be better able to defend itself if it were completely open with the industry that it is attempting to regulate. An e-mail from the European Commission received by my office states that the document is not ready to be seen outside the working group on the policy. As I have said, the proposal is already well known within the haulage industry, so I ask the European Union to open the discussion to everyone who will be affected by the proposal, to ensure that anything that is developed is in the interests of British companies.

The European Commission’s proposal has caused concern among those in the haulage industry, from my constituent, Robin Allen, to the chief executive officer of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, Mr Paul Everitt, who has stated:

“The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders’ view on trailer heights is that limiting them to 4 metres would be detrimental to the vehicle industry, UK infrastructure, environment and economy.”

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I come to this debate as the chairman of the all-party group on freight transport, and we discussed this issue at our last meeting. At that meeting, there were organisations around the table from across the spectrum, not only from the haulage industry but from the haulage rescue industry, which would undoubtedly see its work load rise under this proposal.

The hon. Lady has made some excellent points. Does she agree that Britain should be at the forefront of fighting against this proposal, saying, “No, 4.2 metres, 4 metres or whatever the European suggestion is for is just ridiculous. It doesn’t work for British hauliers and should be opposed at every stage.”?

[Pauline Latham]

I agree that we should be at the forefront of the fight against this proposal, because it would impact so greatly on our haulage industry, which, as I have said, faces so many challenges at the moment. It would also impact on the people of this country, who would pay more for their goods. We are already in a difficult, cash-strapped situation, so we do not want to increase the difficulties not only for the haulage industry but for every single one of us. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point and hope that the Minister will take it on board.

Time is short, so I will use what time I have left to ask three things of the Minister—for the sake of the British economy, we need to get this proposal right. Before doing so, however, I thank him for his letter of 22 December 2010. First, I hope that the Minister will use his time today to outline his Department’s position in relation to the European Commission’s proposal. I understand from his letter to me and his comments to the trade press that he and the Department share many of the views of the haulage industry, but perhaps he will put that position on record. Secondly, will he ask the European Commission to make the proposal document available, so that those within the industry who will be affected can give their views? Thirdly and finally, I ask him to write to Government MEPs to ask them to raise the concerns of the British haulage industry in Europe.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I have certainly learned a lot from what the hon. Lady has just said, and I am very much looking forward to hearing the response from the Minister.

12:37

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. We entered the House together; clearly I have gone one way and you have gone another.

This is a really important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) on securing it, so that I can do exactly what she has asked me to do and set out the Government’s position. Also, I say to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) that I would love to speak to the all-party group on freight transport and set out the Government’s position there, too; I know the all-party group well, just as the haulage industry in general knows me very well.

In the short time that I have been a Minister, I have been trying to set out as quickly as possible the new Government’s position on this issue, particularly to hauliers, given the problems that they face. I would love to think that, when the Prime Minister appointed me to my post, he knew that I hold a heavy goods vehicle licence and have done so since I was 17—I was in the military at the time, so I could hold a HGV licence at that age, unlike in civvy street, where someone has to be 21. Sadly, I have never driven an articulated vehicle, although the Stobart Group has encouraged me to do so on its private land; indeed, I will do so in the very near future.

I want to set out right from the start that the Government have absolutely no intention of introducing the 4-metre regulation here; we are fighting it tooth and nail. Yesterday, my officials within this group in Europe attended a meeting, and said exactly that. This is majority vote territory, so we have to ensure that we are not alone, and I am pleased that the information coming back is that other countries with substantial vote clout are indicating that they are not happy either.

It is important that I set out why I am turning around and saying no to my European friends. It is not just that I am a little Eurosceptic, but that the measure would have a fundamental effect on the British haulage industry. Other countries in Europe already have a 4-metre limit—Austria, for example. No vehicle entering that country can have a height of more than 4 metres, which is absolutely fine. The people of Austria have every right to decide that, but they do not have any right to tell us, in this country, what the height of our vehicles should be.

There are a number of key points. We have a system that works perfectly well—it’s not broken, so don’t fix it. We should not put our hauliers in a disproportionately difficult fiscal position. Environmentally, what are we doing talking about limiting the height and thereby increasing the number of vehicles on our roads? I have absolutely no intention of increasing the weight limit on vehicles, so this measure would immediately cause a problem. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it would place a disproportionate burden on our industry.

I am carefully considering proposals to extend the length of vehicles by adding more crates to the back of certain vehicles. The issue has split the industry almost 50:50, and I can see the benefits but also the problems for some of the smaller hauliers, whose trailer stock would have to be changed. The industry should not fear that proposal though, because it is common sense to move more products around our congested roads in just one vehicle, which will take more vehicles off the roads altogether.

I have not only set out the position to the industry here in Parliament, but written articles, provided interviews and strongly set out my views, because I want this market-driven industry, which has very tight profit margins, to know not only what is happening on this issue, but how the Government will protect it in the future. Hauliers come over to this country from other European countries with belly tanks on, drive around our roads, pay no taxation and buy no fuel. It is difficult for our industry to compete with that, so we are looking at lorry road-user charges to create a more level playing field. We are committed to bringing in such a charge for trucks, because it will create a better balance.

I am also trying to limit the amount of regulation, so that the industry does not feel that the Government are on its back all the time. If there are bad hauliers out there with vehicles that are not fit for purpose, it is quite right that our police should bring regulation down on them like a ton of bricks. The vast majority of those in the industry, however, play by the rules and do the very best they can, but at the same time they feel that more regulation and more of a burden is placed on them.

As well as being the roads Minister, responsible for the UK freight industry and haulage, I am the deregulation Minister, and I am looking carefully at the regulations that are out there, some of which we have inherited and some of which have come from Europe. We are talking about just one of the measures that Europe has decided to look at, but about four fifths of all regulations that come through the Department for Transport are either EU or internationally led. It is difficult, therefore, to start to deregulate when these things have already been decided. The key is to get in early, to put our foot down absolutely rigorously right at the start and say, “This is the position we’re in.” To be fair to the Commission, I think that it realises that the measure is not popular and will certainly not get unanimity, and it is starting to learn that not only this country but others will start to kick and push back.

The earlier we push back on regulations from Europe, the better. As I have said, there were meetings yesterday, and there will be more as we go forward, and there is no doubt that the Commission knows this Government’s views—it certainly knows mine. My officials have been told in no uncertain terms to ensure that those views are put forward as strongly as possible. The European Parliament also knows my views, and I certainly will be working with it, and hon. Members, and I can spread the good word about where we are through the all-party groups. I hope to write an article on this matter in the next few weeks, to elaborate exactly where we are, not only on this matter but on the enormously important issue of trailer length.

To move forward on this subject, in which I am sure you are very interested, Mr Hollobone, it is important that not only do I do my bit and my hon. Friend does hers but, as constituency MPs, we all do our bit. It is important that I get as much written support as possible, to show that we have, in our armoury, cross-party support in the House. The matter is not new—it has been around since 2005—and I am sure that the shadow teams, even though they quite rightly cannot contribute to the debate today, understand the problems that have been coming through. It is important that the hauliers in my constituency, my hon. Friend’s constituency and the constituency of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South know that we will do everything we can to support them in this and other areas related to the regulatory burden.

[Robert Flello]

I welcome what the Minister has said today, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) on securing the debate.

Taking up the comment that the Minister made at the beginning, I invite him to address the next meeting of the all-party group on freight transport, to set at rest the minds of all the different organisations represented there, and perhaps to discuss issues of great concern and relevance to various organisations out there in the haulage industry, such as the motor insurance database.

[Mike Penning]

I am more than grateful to accept that offer. I am sure that my officials have heard what has been said and will contact the hon. Gentleman in the near future, so that I can discuss these and the many other issues of concern to the haulage industry. On his point about insurance—something that he is perhaps looking into—there should be no fears around that. The idea is to remove the at least 1.5 million people who drive on the highways and byways of this country when uninsured, and I am sure that the haulage industry wholeheartedly supports me on the importance of addressing that.

The haulage industry needs to supply us with evidence, because it is all well and good my standing up here and our having a debate, but we are not experts in this field. The people in the industry are the experts on these problems, which affect their jobs, and their capacity to do them, every single day. As well as us and the Government saying, “Right, we’re going to push back on this,” the evidence has to come from the industry itself, so that when other countries in the European Union say that they are pro this—some are—we can have an evidence-based argument, which is absolutely crucial.

The evidence needs to be not only on the costs and the increased distance travelled—there are different figures around, but there would be an increase of about 4.5% in road use, particularly by articulated lorries—but on the effects on CO₂ emissions. One thing that we all want to do is to protect the planet for our young people and for the future, but at the same time we need growth. The last thing in the world that I want, therefore, if I am sweating the assets on the highways, and particularly the motorways, of this country—something we try to do as much as possible—is to see an increase in the number of lorries without an increase in growth. There would be an increase in cost, but not in profitability. We estimate that this would equate to about 151,000 new cars on the road, which, for those who do not know the industry, would cost road haulage about £305 million a year. Figures such as those—our Department produced them in consultation with the industry—are desperately needed. We need to quantify matters and ensure that we have a proper evidence base.

Impact assessments must be done not only for fiscal problems and emissions but for congestion. One thing that I have learned since I took over this portfolio eight months ago is that congestion involves not only pollution but money for the haulage industry. That is why we have announced, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, that we will remove barrier tolls from the Dartford river crossing by the end of 2012 to allow free flow, so that hauliers do not sit in traffic for 10, 11 or 12 miles. Often, no accident has occurred; it is just that someone is trying to find their money or credit card to pay, while the barriers bob up and down and traffic moves forward. That will open up opportunities enormously for the industry in that part of the world.

I have said to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs that we will consider whether we can negotiate with the contract holder of the Severn bridge crossing to do the same. I was also on the M6 toll road the other day to discuss whether barriers could be removed there and replaced by number plate recognition. Sadly, legislation would need to be introduced—I hope to introduce it with reference to the Dartford river crossing—to allow us to pursue and find people who refuse to pay the tolls that everybody else pays.

The next step is that the Department for Transport will again meet the relevant heads of responsibilities in the European Commission—as I have said, we met yesterday— and make it perfectly clear that we are more than happy with the status quo and do not want to reduce the limit to 4 metres. We have told the other member states supporting us that we are happy with the status quo. They feel that issues might arise involving cross-border enforcement. That operates perfectly well today; as I said earlier, Austria already has a 4-metre limit and enforces it. That is fine for Austria. We do not need to enforce anything, because there is no limit and we are perfectly happy. We have weight restrictions.

I have alluded to allowing free-flow tolling at the Dartford river crossing. Interestingly, the left-hand bore going north is the smaller of the two tunnels, and when we move to free-flow tolling, there will be issues involving how to move oversize vehicles into the right-hand bore. Free-flow tolling going south will cost money, but it is much simpler coming off the bridge.

[Mr Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Because of the size of the regional tunnel—some of us remember when it was the only tunnel available for crossing at that part of the dock—it is absolutely imperative that we consider traffic going north, as there are safety implications. However, we have managed to do it. There are plenty of bridges, tunnels and crossings in this country with height restrictions, and we have pushed hard to ensure that we protect them.

As I said earlier, Mr Hollobone—[Interruption.] It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I mentioned earlier that if we made the change, there would undoubtedly be pressure on me as a Minister to increase the weight limits in line with other parts of Europe. It is a natural argument to make. If I argue that we do not want more vehicles as a result of the height limitation, the pressure will say, “We have dropped to 4 metres. If you want fewer vehicles, it would be better—wouldn’t it, Minister?—to increase weight limits so we can move the same amount of freight around the country on the same number of vehicles.” I am not minded to do so. As it is, our roads are struggling to cope with the size of some lorries. Some lorries, often unintentionally, end up on wrong and completely unsuitable roads—we have all seen it; I have seen it especially in the rural part of my constituency—often sent by some satellite navigation device.

There are some interesting ideas about how trailers can adapt for the 21st century without the need to drop the height. For instance, one interesting idea submitted to me is that the payload might be dropped between the two axles in order to get more volume into the trailer on lighter loads. I am considering the extension of trailers, and, as I have said, I will make an announcement pretty soon.

It all falls into place. Margins are tight for hauliers. They are worried, for instance, about the cost of fuel, wages and insurance. This is the last thing that any Government want. I am surprised that Europe is considering such a measure. I do not actually think that that was what was originally intended; I think that it was drifted into. The matter falls into the area of subsidiarity. Europe should not be touching it; it is a sovereign area. However, it is a matter for qualified majority voting, so as much as I would like to stand alone and say that England can defend our shores, unless we carry the support of a significant number of other European Union countries, we will struggle. However, all the evidence that we are receiving at the moment says that we have support, including, interestingly, from France, our closest neighbour, which is also not interested in imposing the 4-metre limit. It looks as though common sense will come forward.

I think that I have exhausted this interesting and important subject and set out the Government’s position strongly. I hope that hon. Members here today are listening, as are the industry and the European Commission, and that we can move forward and protect our freight industry and hauliers. I am passionate about the issue.

To declare an interest, I drove HGVs young in life—I was a fireman and, like all firemen, had a part-time job, so I drove HGVs during my time off. We must protect hauliers and ensure that we have a robust British industry of which we can be proud. As the Minister, I am determined to defend it.

Arbroath and Forfar Driving Test Centres

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Westminster Hall

12:56

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I am pleased to appear under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I am also pleased to see the Minister here. I was a bit worried this morning when I saw the written statement that the Secretary of State for Transport issued on the closure of an office in Cardiff. It starts:

“The Driving Standards Agency (DSA) is responsible for setting standards and conducting theory and practical driving tests for motorists in England and Wales.”

I wondered whether the Government had devolved responsibility without telling us, but I am assured that that is not the case and that the Minister is still responsible for the Scottish centres.

A problem has arisen in my constituency. Last week, the Driving Standards Agency announced the closure of the driving test centres at Arbroath and Forfar. The decision has caused a huge amount of anger among those who are undergoing driving instruction, driving instructors and the general public. That anger stems not only from the effects of the closure on our local communities, but from how the closure was announced.

Actually, saying that it was announced is incorrect. What happened is that the Driving Standards Agency wrote to local driving instructors on 30 December, although many letters were not received until after the new year holiday. At the same time, the DSA sent me a letter with a copy of the first letter attached. The letter informed driving instructors about a wonderful new multi-purpose testing centre to be opened in Dundee in February. Halfway through, the letter casually stated:

“In line with the opening of this new centre and in keeping with the Agency’s Code of Practice I wish to notify you of the closure of the practical driving test centres in Arbroath and Forfar. Arbroath and Forfar test centres will cease to operate with effect from 18 March 2011.”

That was the first that any of us had heard of it. No prior notice was given, no consultation was held and, in effect, no public announcement was made; only a letter was sent to driving instructors.

The letter went on to say that those who had booked tests at Arbroath and Forfar centres would

“be contacted by the Agency to notify them of this change in location.”

It is not a change in location; it is the removal of a local facility without any notice or consultation. In effect, those seeking tests will have to sit them in Dundee.

Worse still, the DSA imperiously noted that it did not need to consult on the matter and that the closure would go ahead. That is a ridiculous, high-handed and objectionable way for any Government agency to behave. Surely those affected by such a decision should, at the very least, be consulted before an important local service is removed. The present Government say that they are committed to localism—in fact, the Localism Bill received its Second Reading yesterday—but the way in which they have proceeded is the antithesis of such a policy. Will the Minister get in touch with the DSA immediately and tell it that such a high-handed attitude is totally unacceptable and that it must consult before removing services from local communities?

In Angus, local petitions and a Facebook campaign are already showing the level of opposition to that move. The removal of the driving test centres would have serious implications for Angus. It would mean that only Montrose, which is a part-time testing station, would be left between Dundee and Aberdeen on the east cost of Scotland. All the driving centres in the area already have substantial waiting times, and I will address that point in a moment.

The Driving Standards Agency’s own charter for excellence gives a standard of six weeks’ waiting time for a driving test, but I am told by local instructors that, at present, the average waiting time in Arbroath, Forfar, Montrose and Dundee test centres is 10 to 12 weeks, while 14 is not unknown. I know that that is the case because my own daughter is learning to drive and, apart from the cost, she will have to wait for a driving test.

At the end of December, tests were being allocated for the end of March, which effectively means a three-month wait for a test. Closure of the Arbroath and Forfar stations will surely exacerbate that problem and lead to even longer waiting times. How does that comply with the agency’s own charter? I understand that the Government’s charter mark was removed from the agency in 2003 due to its inability to meet its obligations. It seems that, given the waiting times and the charter’s terms, it is moving towards the same situation.

The removal of the stations in Arbroath and Forfar would mean that those who have already booked tests for dates after the closure would have to re-book for a test in Dundee and would fall, presumably, to the end of the queue, putting their tests off for at least several weeks. They would also either face further lessons to learn the techniques of driving under very different city conditions on their test route, or take the test at a huge disadvantage; it might be different from what they expected.

The situation is even worse for future learner drivers in the Angus area. At present, a driving lesson in Angus costs in the region of £20 for an hour, which I can confirm because, as I have said, my daughter is learning to drive. The costs are already under pressure due to the escalating price of fuel, which now stands at £1.26 a litre in Brechin, where I live, and to increases in VAT, and they will undoubtedly rise further. Within the hour of a driving lesson, the learner can learn driving techniques that are normal in the area in which they would expect to take their test: Arbroath, Forfar or Montrose. If, however, they now face having to go to Dundee to take the test, they will, understandably, wish to learn to drive in the type of conditions in which they would be taking their tests, which means that they would have to learn to drive mostly in the city of Dundee. Therefore, if they took lessons from a local driving instructor, the driving time from Forfar or Arbroath to Dundee and back would take up the vast bulk of their one hour lesson, giving them very little time to learn within the city area.

The implications for those people are quite clear: they would have to take substantially more lessons, or to book two-hour lessons, which would substantially increase the cost of learning to drive. Few of the young people in my constituency who are learning to drive could afford to pay the £40 to £50 per week that would be required. Moreover, on the test days themselves, as well as paying the fee of £62 for the test, they would incur the costs of three hours’ hire of the instructor’s car and time. It is a substantial cost just to sit the test.

The implications for local driving instructors would be equally devastating. They are mostly small businesses; indeed, they are often one-person operations. They have to meet increasing costs, as I have mentioned, due to rising fuel prices and VAT, which already impact upon the costs of lessons. Clearly, they would wish to teach their pupils on the types of routes over which they would have to sit their tests, but is it really conceivable that their pupils would be prepared to pay almost double the price currently charged? Many pupils may take the bus to Dundee and receive their lessons from a Dundee instructor rather than a local one, thus devastating their businesses. What is the sense in closing local facilities and imperilling local small businesses? I thought that the Government’s policy was to encourage the creation of private sector jobs, but the ridiculous closure decision will have exactly the opposite effect. How on earth can this be justified? It seems to fly in the face of the much-vaunted localism agenda.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valuable point in relation to the impact on driving instructors whose centres are closed in that way, particularly in Forfar and Arbroath. When the driving test centre in Warrington was closed, there was a displacement of activity to driving instructors in St Helen’s, which had a test centre, and that has resulted in a number of Warrington-based driving instructors going out of business. A secondary impact is that the pass rates for Warrington-based students have declined, presumably because they were less likely to be able to practise in those areas in which they would ultimately take the test.

[Mr Weir]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who has reiterated my point. There will also be real impacts upon the local community of Angus. Not only will the decision mean, as I have said, that there will be only one test centre between Dundee and Aberdeen—and that a part-time one—but, inevitably, there will be increased waiting times for tests for many constituents. The Minister will also be aware, however, that the type of driving that is suitable for cities—I think that this is the point that the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) was making—is different from the type of driving that is, or should, be practised on rural roads in areas such as Angus.

I noticed the Minister shaking his head at some of my earlier points on this issue. Although it is undoubtedly true that drivers should be able to deal with any road conditions and situations that they encounter, I am sure that he would agree that it is vital that those who learn to drive do so on the roads that they are most likely to use, especially in the early months of driving. I am seriously concerned that those who learn to drive on the congested city roads may find it a very different experience on country roads. I believe that to be a serious safety issue.

As I said, the Minister shook his head at some of my earlier remarks, but just before Christmas he accepted that argument, to some extent, in relation to motorcycle tests when he announced that they would take place mostly on local roads, not in specialist centres, in order to deal with the ridiculous situation where motorcyclists in rural areas often had to travel large distances to a test centre. However, the letter that I received from the DSA states that the test facilities in Perth for motorcyclists are also being withdrawn and that they will have to travel to Dundee for the tests. It appears that motorcyclists from highland Perthshire, for example, will have to go to either Dundee or Inverness, which is a long journey either way, for a test. Surely that action goes against the Minister’s own announced policy a month ago.

The DSA’s actions are even more inexplicable when we look at the pass rates from the various test centres. The hon. Member for Warrington South referred to that point in relation to his own area. In 2010, Arbroath had a pass rate of 61.1% and Forfar 57.2%, while Dundee had a pass rate of only 47.3%. They all administer the same test, so it seems that the driving instructors and examiners in those areas are doing something right, yet they are being rewarded by the daft decision to close the centres.

In its own publicity, the DSA says that it aims to make appointments available within nine weeks, although it gives itself an out by limiting that to 90% of test centres. I submit that that will, in any event, be almost impossible if this centralising proposal goes ahead. The promise under the DSA’s “Customer Service Excellence” section to

“make a tangible difference to public service users by encouraging provider organisations to focus on customers’ individual needs and preferences”

will raise a hollow laugh around Angus as our facilities are stripped away. What customers want is a local facility that meets local needs.

It is also interesting to note that the agency promotes an eco-safe driving scheme. It states that

“the objectives of this scheme also support the Department for Transport’s targets to improve road safety and the environmental performance of transport.”

How will it be more eco-efficient to have learners and instructors travelling from all over Angus to take lessons and tests in Dundee? Surely the effect will be an increase in carbon emissions.

Since I secured the debate, I have received representations from many areas of the United Kingdom where similar situations have developed. I understand that some 22 test centres have closed over the past two years and accept that the problem predates the Government. However, the Minister is in post when the Government are trying to close the test centre in my constituency and many others throughout the UK. The Driving Standards Agency seems to have a deliberate policy of closing smaller test centres in favour of large multi-purpose test centres. For all the reasons I have noted, that is a misguided and dangerous proposal for learners, instructors and local communities.

I urge the Minister to undertake an urgent review of the policy and immediately to tell the Driving Standards Agency to halt the proposed closures at Arbroath and Forfar. At the very least, they should ensure that there is a public consultation before any decisions are made. That is the least the general public should expect when an important local facility is under threat. Such a facility would not be removed by central diktat in any other area without a public announcement or consultation with not only the community, but those directly affected by the proposal. This is a totally inappropriate way for any Government agency to proceed.

13:11

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

I reiterate the earlier comments I made when you took the Chair, Mr Chope: it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir). He is doing exactly what I would do if I were a Back Bencher—standing up for his community.

Let us agree on some things from the start. If the waiting list is 10 to 12 weeks—I take the hon. Gentleman’s word that that is the case—the centres will not close until they are within the guidelines, which is six weeks. Pre-bookings are an issue. People can pre-book in bulk, which causes a problem. The hon. Gentleman said that there were bookings into March. There will be pre-bookings in cases when instructors can predict that their pupils are likely to be able to take the test at that time. That is why there are pre-bookings. It happens around the country—it happened when my daughter was doing her test just 18 months ago.

There is an issue relating to consultation. However, I must say that I have inherited the Driving Standards Agency code of practice that his Government put into place.

[Mr Weir]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

No. I sat and listened, so the hon. Gentleman can listen to me for a few minutes longer and then he can intervene. Let me make my point first. I inherited the current situation. As a result of the distance travelled, the code of practice brought in by the previous Government states that there does not have to be a consultation. I am looking at that issue because I do not think it is acceptable. I am eight months into the job and I have a very large portfolio. I accept that there are issues, but I inherited this situation and I will look at it and see if we can change it. I am happy to do so as long as the hon. Gentleman accepts that his Government were the problem and were closing driving test centres long before I was appointed to my post.

[Mr Weir]

I do not accept that. I was not a supporter of the previous Government just as I am not a supporter of this Government. I represent the Scottish National party. I accept the Minister’s point that he did not introduce the code of practice, but the code of practice exists and he is the Minister. He says he is looking at it, but will he suspend closures until he considers the matter in more detail?

[Mike Penning]

I humbly apologise to the hon. Gentleman. It was wrong and improper of me to assume that he was a member of the previous Government. It is probably because there has been a coalition in Scotland over the years since I have been in politics. I completely and humbly apologise; it was an insult.

[Mr Weir]

It was a great insult.

[Mike Penning]

I have been insulted many times over the years. I am sure we can solve the problem over a pint of beer.

I am not going to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests because I want the Driving Standards Agency to make progress. I shall touch on several points, including those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), regarding how we should be dealing with the matter. The issue has nothing to do with bricks and mortar and buildings; it is about the quality of service, the test and the people who are taking the test. I shall work backwards through the issues.

Long before I took over this portfolio, one of the biggest things that worried me as a father and that worries me now as a Minister is that people are being taught to pass a test, rather than how to drive and be safe on the road for themselves and other road users. My daughter is going through the process at the moment—as is the daughter of the hon. Member for Angus—which is difficult and strenuous. I intend to make it more difficult, not because I am picking on young people, or on anyone who is taking their test, but because if we consider the statistics on 17 to 25-year-old people who pass their test—predominantly boys—they are a huge risk to themselves, other road users and their passengers.

A frightening statistic shows that the riskiest thing a lady aged 17 to 25 can do is to sit in the passenger seat of a car with a 17 to 25-year-old boy of any description, whether he is related to the lady or not. That is a frightening thing. The system is not working, so we must look at what the test involves. For someone to say, “That test centre has a better pass rate than that one so it should stay open,” is really looking at things from the wrong end of the telescope. We have recently changed the driving test to give young drivers in particular—and other drivers—the skills that they need when they leave the test centre and they are sitting in a car on their own with no one telling them which way to go, and they have not driven the route 100 times with their instructor.

[Mr Weir]

I do not disagree to a large extent with what the Minister is saying. I agree that there is sometimes a serious problem with young drivers. I accept that a 10-minute independent drive is now part of the test, but does he not accept that if someone learns to drive in a congested city area and they are faced with the country roads of somewhere such as Angus or perhaps his own constituency, they experience very different driving conditions that are perhaps not the appropriate driving conditions? It would be better if they understood the conditions in which they will be driving, at least in the early months of their driving.

[Mike Penning]

When someone passes their test, there is no restriction at all on where they can drive in the country. Someone can pass their test in Angus, drive to the nearest dual carriageway on their own and go down the motorway. I am also seriously considering how we can give the relevant skills to young drivers who have never driven on a motorway in their life, whether or not someone is sat next to them. At the moment, they can pass their test and go straight on the motorway. We must work on dealing with that.

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not looked at the changes that have recently been made to the driving test. We have dealt with the problem of someone going to an area because they know it. We are not publishing the routes that people take for their test, and instructors will not know what the examiners are going to do. However, I agree that people have to understand how to drive on rural roads, which we have in parts of my constituency as well as in that of the hon. Gentleman, and in urban areas. We must have a situation in which we increase the skill base. I have listened to the instructors in certain areas and they have said, “This will have a detrimental effect because we will have to teach them to go there.” That is based on old knowledge and on the fact that we used to publish the routes that examiners would take. We are no longer going to do that. They will not know the routes. People will not only have to be able to drive for 10 minutes without being guided, which is what happens when people have passed their test, but they will not know the routes. The instructors do not know the routes; things will not happen that way.

This a short debate, so let us touch on the important points raised by the hon. Gentleman because I find some of them very worrying, especially his analogy. The reason I changed the motorcycle test is because someone could drive for up to two hours to a test centre and be taken off-road to a piece of tarmac that the Government own to do an off-road test. They could fail the test, yet be allowed to drive two hours back, or whatever the distance is. The test was not fit for purpose, which is why I have reviewed it. The whole test will be on the road, not off-road, and will be done in one go, unlike the present on-road and off-road arrangement. That will give motorcyclists the skills that will enable them to make progress, about which I have been talking in relation to car drivers. The analogy is not there.

As I have said, what is important—I will consider this matter—is that if the waiting list is as great as the hon. Gentleman says and it is blocked, these centres will not close until the capacity can be taken up in Dundee. I give that commitment today. We have to be in that situation. However, I will consider the matter of block bookings by driving instructors who pre-book extensively and block up areas, so that there are no bookings available for other people.

In the short period of time we have for the debate, let us look, if we can, at what the test should be for and see if we can go forward fixated not with buildings, but with service to the community and the people who want to take their test.

[David Mowat]

I was hoping that the debate would touch on what I regard as the major issue, which is the multi-test centres and other super-test centres. They became the policy of the previous Government because they over-interpreted an EU requirement regarding the motorcycle test. I believe that the Transport Committee, inter alia, pointed out that that was wrong, did not need to happen and was an error, yet the concept of a super-test centre is being pursued. It sounds as though that happened in Dundee and St Helens. One result of that, which the Minister might want to comment on, is that motorcyclists have to travel even further for their test, and further back if they fail it.

[Mike Penning]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Select Committee, under the previous Administration, had real concerns about how the motorcycle test was fundamentally changed. It felt that the Government had misinterpreted guidance on kilometres—in English, motorcyclists had to do just under 31 miles an hour. I agree, fundamentally, with the Select Committee, which is why we have broken away from that. We have a pilot at the moment and we have worked with the industry—the testers, the unions and everybody out there—to get a test that I hope is closer to fit for purpose.

There is a fundamental difference, I am afraid, regarding the motorcycle test centres. A plethora of them appeared all over the country. The big problem was finding suitable off-road facilities for part one of the test. I looked at that, and the review looked at it. It was farcical that we spent millions and millions of pounds building pieces of tarmac that, in the near future, we will have to sell off because we do not need them any more.

The key issue and the most important thing, to return to what I was saying, is not the building, the instructors, Members of Parliament or Ministers, but the people who take their test. The test has to be fit for purpose. I am not at all worried about a drop in pass rates, because that would tell me something. For example, quite a few people think that their instructor is a qualified driving instructor—very often, they are not. That is something we need to look at to ensure that the public know exactly who is qualified and who is not. We need to ensure that the test is fit for purpose, and we are doing a lot of work on that.

The next stage is to ask why people who want to take their test have to go to the instructor. Why can the instructor not come to them? The two test centres mentioned earlier, in Forfar and Arbroath, are open two days a week. Why is there not a facility, whatever the demand is, for a tester to go people’s community two days a week? Why are we fixated with a Soviet system that means that people have to come to Government so that we can give them a piece of paper that says they can drive? That, to me, is the way forward. Other countries around the world have looked at that and do not have test centres that are physically big. There are test centres where instructors are based, and they then go out into the community. That would alleviate many of the concerns that the hon. Member for Angus has raised today—how far people have to go, the cost to the community, the risk to instructors and so on. Some of that fear is unfounded and I have touched on why, especially given the developments in the test, but I am more than willing to look at whether it is right, in the 21st century, that if someone wants a piece of paper or card that says that the Government say they can drive a car, motorcycle or a lorry, they have to go into a Government building in Dundee, or wherever it happens to be—in my case, in St Albans.

It is fit and proper to look closely at how the DSA works. I accept some of the criticisms. I have already said that I will look carefully at how the consultation process works. I would like to have been told. I apologise to the hon. Member for Angus for not sending him a letter, because I write to everybody when there are closures and I do not know how that one slipped through the net. I also apologise on behalf of the DSA and the Department, because I am absolutely paranoid about writing to MPs when something happens in their constituency. I think that it is very important that MPs are informed. I will look at the guidance on how the code of practice works. It is not difficult to consult on these things; it is difficult to know how far to go, but it is important that we do so. We must not, I stress, be fixated with buildings. Buildings deliver a service that could be delivered in other ways.

[Mr Weir]

It is not a fixation about buildings; it is a fixation about the service being available in the community. If the Minister can tell me I am wrong I would be delighted to have further details, but what appears to be happening is that the service has been removed from the local community. People will still have to go to a building. That building will not be in Arbroath and Forfar, however, it will be in Dundee, and that will be severely detrimental to the community.

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Under the proposals, that is what will happen. There is not full-time demand in his constituency, so we have a building sitting empty for three days of the week. That is a fact, and I cannot afford to do that in the present situation. Going forward—I stress going forward—the proposals will be developed. It will take time; they will have to be piloted and pushed forward in consultation with the whole of the industry, whether testers or instructors, and relevant MPs, to ensure that there is proper debate.

It must be right that we offer services to the community. That is what this is about. It is not about the buildings, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is about service to the community. At the moment, in his constituency, the service is being taken up on two days a week. That is what I am told. If I am wrong, people should write to me and tell me. The demand may be there, but the centres are not operating for more than two days a week. That is where we are.

Given the cost and the really difficult fiscal situation that we are in, which is the same in Scotland as it is in Wales, Northern Ireland and England, we have to ensure that all assets are being sweated as much as they can be. I will look carefully at the consultation. I will look carefully at the amount of waiting times, but I think I will find a lot of block bookings from the instructors the hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier. If it is a problem of block bookings, we will have to address it. However, if the waiting time is more than six weeks—more than the code of conduct says—they will not close until it is inside six weeks. That is a commitment I give today. What we all want, for all our constituents, is for the test to be fit for purpose, and for people to be able to enjoy the road, no matter what vehicle they pass their test on, so that they are safe for themselves and others. At the moment, I stress that we have a lot of work to do on the test to make it fit for purpose in the 21st century.

Young Carers

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Westminster Hall

13:28

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Chope. I am delighted to have been granted the opportunity to secure a debate on the sensitive and somewhat emotional subject of young carers.

Across our country, it is estimated that 700,000 young people support their mother, father, brother, sister or grandparent as a primary carer. Each and every one of those brave young people has a unique story to tell, and all of them face a range of difficulties as a result of the compassion and love that they show toward their cared-for relatives. As I am sure all new MPs will agree, attempting to visit as many community groups and local organisations as possible was, and remains, a key priority following last May’s general election. I was fortunate enough to be invited to visit York Young Carers last October. I shall always remember meeting some of York’s most valuable young people. Listening to some of the young carers’ stories made me immensely proud to be one of the MPs of our great city of York. I cannot praise highly enough our young cares’ courage, compassion and utter dedication to their role.

The visit also opened my eyes to the vast responsibilities that young carers find placed on their shoulders at such a young age. Their wide-ranging roles include providing physical and mental support, organising hospital visits, paying bills, cooking meals, cleaning, organising medication and liaising with social workers. Given that the average age of young carers is just 12 years, it is remarkable that so many have the capacity to care while also studying at school and developing emotionally themselves.

In addition, my meeting gave me a fascinating insight into the tremendous work carried out by the York Young Carers charity, and I know that many other charities across the country do similar things. I take this opportunity to highlight the dedication of the organisation’s staff and volunteers. From offering young carers one-to-one support to providing an environment where they can come together to socialise, support one another and share their experience, the charity is an invaluable source of support and stability for the young people.

One of the most important support mechanisms that the charity provides is organising away-day trips. Young carers spend so much of their time acting with the responsibility and maturity of adults that it is important to remember that they are, in fact, just children themselves. By providing trips and away days, charities such as York Young Carers provide welcome relief from the everyday challenges of caring. For a brief period, young carers are allowed to enjoy being children again.

I would also like to draw attention to the “Young Carers Revolution” media campaign set up by York Young Carers to highlight the difficulties facing young carers across the country. A promotional DVD is available on YouTube, and I encourage all interested Members to watch it to see for themselves what young carers go through, and to hear about it through their own words.

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this incredibly important debate. Does he agree that the work of York Young Carers is important because of the great stigma that is often attached to young children who care for relatives? Authorities, whether school or social services, are often not aware of the work that they do to try to support their family. That is why what York Young Carers does is so valuable.

[Julian Sturdy]

I agree entirely with those comments. The essence of the debate is to try to raise awareness. I shall go into more detail later about the educational side and potential bullying, but my hon. Friend is right that awareness is crucial. It is sad that the work of so many young carers, not only in York but across the country, goes unrecognised. We must remember that, and the essential contribution that they make not only to their own family but to society as a whole.

The national focus of the “Young Carers Revolution” campaign requires us to look at the state of play for young carers up and down the country more generally. In particular, I am extremely worried by research by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers which concludes that one in three young carers face educational difficulties, while two in three experience bullying at school.

There can be no doubt that young carers live under huge pressure. As I have said, their roles and responsibilities are great and many. We must all expect that such unenviable circumstances will, in most instances, have an adverse effect on the time and ability of young carers to contribute fully to their educational studies. With a young carer’s first priority being the relative for whom they care, it is only right that schools and education providers understand and are sympathetic to their role. One of the greatest frustrations outlined to me by York Young Carers was that too few people, including some teachers, fully appreciate the pressures, both time-wise and emotionally, under which young carers operate. Sadly, 60% of young carers say that they would not be able to talk to a teacher about their caring role, which I find disappointing.

Given that the research by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers shows that some young carers spend up to 50 hours a week carrying out their caring role in their family home, the subject needs greater exposure. It is essential that schools not only show great understanding towards students who are carers, but take on the role of educating others about the pressures faced by their peers. I know that Members on both sides of the House fully support the “Stand Against Bullying” campaign, and I hope that the Minister will be able to commit Government support to those who are working hard to challenge negative attitudes in our classrooms. It is simply unacceptable that two out of three young carers are subject to bullying, and I would welcome his thoughts on how central Government, in conjunction with local authorities and schools, can work in a co-ordinated manner to tackle that form of harassment.

On the academic side, I urge all schools and colleges to provide additional learning support to known young carers who may struggle with their grades as a result of their responsibilities. I am concerned that a childhood of care can sometimes lead to limited options for the individual concerned as they move into adulthood. It would be a tragedy if that were to prove to be the case, so I would like universities and employers to take a more informed view when being approached by those who have spent a sizeable part of their learning years operating as carers. Ensuring accessibility to education, higher study and employment for young carers is vital.

As well as educational difficulties, young carers face struggles relating to additional social support and financial assistance. Less than a month ago—it might seem longer to some Members—the country was celebrating Christmas, a wonderful festive season. As a father of two young children, I know how important it is to families and children, yet it is at that time of year that the plight of young carers can be captured most vividly.

Sadly, more than one quarter of young carers had to wrap their own Christmas presents, and one in five found Christmas day tougher or sadder than the rest of the year because support services are reduced and family finances are under greater pressure. For most of Britain’s children, Christmas day is an opportunity to relax, enjoy presents, watch TV and share family time, but more than one third of young carers spend more than six hours carrying out their caring role on Christmas day itself. The chief executive of the Princess Royal Trust for Carers stated:

“Many of the young carers we surveyed wished for their family member to get better rather than get the latest toy. Sadly for them Christmas is just like any other day.”

My purpose in highlighting young carers’ difficulties during the festive period is not simply to praise their magnificent contribution, though that would be a worthy enough reason in itself, but to pick up on the amount of support that is available to them. Without question, a number of fantastic social services staff work with young carers across the country, but what worries me is that, on average, it takes four years for young carers to receive any support at all.

Such delays are often a result of fear or embarrassment. Sadly, a culture of fear seems to be prevalent among young carers, and I can absolutely understand why. Asking for help is never easy, particularly if someone fears that their family home may be broken up or disrupted as a result. It is the job of the authorities and the voluntary sector to break the cycle of fear, and I welcome the new national carers strategy commitment to early identification of carers. Such identification and the subsequent focus of support towards young carers are essential.

The recent report commissioned by the Mental Health Foundation in association with the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, “MyCare: The challenges facing young carers of parents with a severe mental illness”, found that young carers are at greater risk of isolation than any other youth group. Also, many young carers lack the information to understand a relative’s mental health problems, and they disproportionately face their own physical and mental health risks.

I share the sentiments of the senior researcher at the Mental Health Foundation, Dr Robotham, who led the “MyCare” report:

“While there are examples of good practice such as young carers’ support groups, much more needs to be done to meet young carers’ needs more effectively.”

That is an accurate assessment. The work of the York Young Carers charity will, for example, be further enhanced if some of the following report suggestions are implemented locally and nationally.

First, I support the report’s suggestion for young carers to be included in discussions of their relative’s treatment. Indeed, young carers in York raised that very issue with me when I met them last year. Our young carers often know the most about the cared-for’s condition and yet, frequently, they are overlooked by health professionals and GPs. I would be most grateful for the Minister’s specific views on that, because it is an important aspect of how young carers are dealt with by the medical profession.

Secondly, as I have touched upon, it is essential that every school has a policy on provision of support for pupils who are young carers. Such a measure would ensure that all teachers and education professionals were aware of the sensitive issues involved.

Thirdly, our health, mental and social services should be encouraged to work together, to be more effective in their offer of support not only to the cared-for but to the carer. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether he has had any discussions with appropriate agencies to promote any such increased co-operation.

Lastly, the issue of funding is of great concern to many carers and related charities. As a firm supporter of the localism agenda and the Localism Bill—sadly, I did not get to speak yesterday, although I was one of the 52 who put in a request to speak—I strongly believe in providing local authorities with greater flexibility about how best to spend their budgets. However, I urge local authorities, including City of York council, to prioritise the needs of young carers highly.

Following the publication of the “MyCare” report, the chief executive of the Princess Royal Trust for Carers stated:

“The aim of this project is to help children’s services, education and mental health services to work together to better identify and support young carers, making the little changes to services that can make a huge difference to their lives.”

That is a key point in the whole process.

Some of the individual concerns that I have discussed today might seem small or insignificant when viewed alongside the wider social services agenda. However, for our young carers, more recognition from health services, greater support from teachers, firmer guarantees about future support provision and simple understanding from wider society would make their pressurised lives a bit easier.

Having spoken with local experts, agencies and, more importantly, young carers themselves, I believe that the issue could and should attract cross-party consensus and action. Our young carers carry out remarkable work, often in unimaginable circumstances and under tremendous pressure. We must do all we can to promote their cause and to ease their burdens.

Britain’s young carers have spent their lives loving, supporting and caring for a member of their family. It is now time that we begin to champion them, and to ensure that each and every young carer has a strong voice and clear access to as much support as possible.

13:43

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Chope.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing the debate and on his exceedingly articulate and measured way of making a strong case. I echo most of the sentiments in his excellent speech, which I hope is heard more widely beyond today’s not overly crowded Chamber.

I am pleased, in particular, to be here to respond as a Minister. As shadow Minister for Children, I took a particular interest in the subject, and I have met many groups of young carers and the organisations involved with them. I pay tribute to those various organisations, some of which my hon. Friend has mentioned, for their excellent and often unrecognised work in a really important area, which affects many more children than some estimates suggest.

Supporting vulnerable children, including young carers, is, of course, a priority for the Government, which is why I am pleased to have the opportunity to articulate our approach to that subset of young people. Helping to care for a family member is something that many young people are happy and proud to do—it helps them to develop a sense of responsibility and skills that are important in later life. Such young people play an absolutely vital role in their families and in society as a whole, for whom they save an awful lot of money. They deserve our recognition and support. However, inappropriate or excessive levels of caring by young people—even if at their own behest—can put their education, training, social development or health at risk, preventing them from enjoying their childhood in the same way as other children. Too many young carers are trapped in harmful caring roles without much hope of fulfilling their potential. That can be for a number of reasons: they do not recognise themselves as young carers or, if they do, they do not seek help; services are not identifying them as carers; or they fear involving children’s services and outside agencies.

That is not, of course, the full picture. Thousands of carers, through admirable resilience and sheer determination, achieve so much despite the odds stacked against them. I have met many young carers, including at the annual young carers festival down in Southampton, which is organised by the Children’s Society—in particular, by Jenny Frank, who has devoted so much of her career to helping young carers—and by the YMCA Fairthorne Group. I have attended for most of the 12 years that that incredible festival has been running. I encourage my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer to attend, if he can—it is usually on a weekend in July. I never cease to be impressed by the commitment of the people whom I meet there and their determination to do the best not only for the person they care for but often for other members of their families, such as their brothers and sisters. Some of those young people have done all that and still succeeded at school and gone on to university or successful employment, but not all of them cope so well.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for making the issue a priority and for finding time to meet the York Young Carers—I shall certainly look at the group’s excellent film on YouTube. As he has said, a new Member is at the call of many organisations wanting to familiarise themselves with new MPs. However, young carers, such as those in my hon. Friend’s constituency, have made it clear to me that they want their schools, GPs and the mental health and other health services with which their family members come into contact to be more supportive and more carer aware. My hon. Friend made a good point, which young carers often make to me, about how the doctor, social worker or professional from another agency, who is seeing the parent or whoever is being cared for, often talks over the head of the young person.

If that young person has the day-to-day responsibility, that young person has some very grown-up responsibility placed on them, they know an awful lot about their loved one’s situation, and they need to be talked to and involved in the process. That is a common plea, and my hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue. Professionals, therefore, need to be more carer aware. Young carers want professionals to recognise that the young carer, despite being a minor, will often be the responsible person in the house and might understand better than anyone what kind of support is needed and when.

It is shocking that so many young people lose the opportunity to live a normal childhood because of their caring role. Such young people are often hidden from everyone but their families. I agree with my hon. Friend that all of us, including those services I mentioned earlier, need to be mindful of the impact that caring can have on a young person’s education, training or employment opportunities. Indeed, that is why providing carers with vital information about the illness or disability that they and their family are coping with and involving them in the decisions about how best to provide care and manage their health is one of the key principles in the carers strategy, “Recognised, valued and supported: next steps for the Carers Strategy”, to which my hon. Friend has referred.

I pay tribute to the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), for the speed with which he and his Department, with support from the Department for Education and others in the Government, published the new strategy. I am pleased to say that carers’ views, including those of young carers, are very much at the heart of it. If we listened to the views of young carers, it would go a long way to helping them.

I shall take this opportunity to praise the young carers in York for producing their “Young Carers Revolution” media campaign, and for the sterling work that they have done to raise awareness and reach out to young carers. They come to the annual festival and have interesting things to say.

The new carers strategy recognises that there are hidden young carers. It sends out a strong signal that effective support for young carers requires adult and children’s services, including health services, schools and the voluntary sector, to work together and prevent young carers from taking on harmful or excessive caring roles. The early intervention grant, worth £2.2 billion a year over the period of the spending review, provides local authorities and their partners with the freedom and flexibility to decide how best to prioritise their resources in accordance with local demand.

The Government strongly believe that such support should be targeted at those children and families who are most in need, and I encourage local authorities to identify appropriate services for young carers and prioritise them. Local authorities can do that by adopting the “Working together to support young carers” programme, which is a memorandum of understanding published jointly by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services. The memorandum is unambiguous in stating that no care package should rely on a young person taking on an inappropriate caring role. I urge local authorities—including that of my hon. Friend—as does the Government’s carers strategy, to consider adopting that memorandum.

All too often, as an Ofsted report highlighted in 2009, services do not work together effectively and young carers fall through the gaps. Training can be an effective way of raising awareness of young carers among professionals who might not otherwise recognise that a young carer is involved. I am grateful for the work done by the Children’s Society, the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, the Social Care Institute for Excellence, and others, to train a range of professionals to be more carer aware.

There is already much good practice in this area, and I join my hon. Friend in saluting the dedication of staff—including thousands of volunteers—who through hundreds of young carer projects, mostly in the voluntary sector, provide young carers with the respite and one-to-one support that they need, giving them the opportunity to take part in activities or go on breaks with friends with whom they can share their experiences. Often, young people who find themselves as carers need to get together with other young people in a similar situation who can appreciate, understand and sympathise with the challenges they face at home. It is about having the opportunity to take an evening off to go and see a film with other people, or to go bowling, or whatever. There are lots of interesting projects, largely set up through the Children’s Society by Jenny Frank and others, and we have entertained many such projects in this House over the years. They could be something simple that make young carers feel that they are not alone and that other people understand and look out for them.

The voluntary sector plays a vital role in supporting those young people, and I am pleased that through the innovation fund, the National Young Carers Coalition is extending the support that it provides to the whole family. The carers centre in York is another example of a voluntary sector project that provides invaluable support.

It is not for Government to micro-manage and prescribe what is best for local authorities—local authorities should know what is most appropriate for their residents and communities. Practice and approach, however, varies across the country and I am committed to encouraging the sharing of best practice—something that we are often not terribly good at—so that all areas in the country can share knowledge about what works from areas that are doing well. I am pleased that the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, which my hon. Friend has mentioned, will, on behalf of the National Young Carers Coalition, showcase the learning from the innovation fund.

My Department has already made available the interim findings from the young carer pathfinders scheme. It shows that where intensive support was co-ordinated by a key worker and focused around the family, between entry and exit from the project, there was a 35% reduction in the number of young carers in those families, and a 41% reduction in the number of young people for whom caring was having a negative impact.

An improving picture is emerging as more young people are referred to receive the support they need as a result of their parents’ mental health or substance misuse problems, and more schools are becoming aware of the support that they need to provide. However, there is much still to do, and a number of families will be facing a range of other complex problems. For example, research highlights that family violence can be an issue at home. That is why I am pleased that on 10 December last year, the Prime Minister announced a new national campaign for families with multiple problems. That campaign sets out to support the most vulnerable 120,000 families, a number of whom will have a young person or persons in a caring role. It represents a new and determined effort to improve the lives of those families and those who live around them. It will trial innovative new approaches to providing tailored support to the whole family where there are complex problems, and it will provide personalised and holistic support to help a family deal with its problems. I look forward to seeing the benefits of that new approach.

From a young carer’s perspective, schools are arguably the local service with which they have the most contact and which play the greatest role in helping them. Young carers have told us that they want their schools to be more supportive and understanding about their caring role and education, and I support that. Young carers want teaching staff to recognise that they may need flexible learning arrangements and additional support. That is a major issue, and it comes up when I go to conferences and meet people. Young carers need an understanding teacher who knows the demands on them and can put in a word if, for some good reason, homework is in late or it is necessary to be in telephone contact with a doctor or another professional because a relative has taken a turn for the worse, or whatever. Good practice is for each school to designate somebody in that role, but that does not always happen.

Although many schools have systems in place to support young carers and have a lead person to support them, that does not happen enough. Some schools may like to consider whether a governor should have an oversight role, just as we recommend for children in the care system who have particular requirements. To increase the support available to young carers in schools, the Department for Education is working closely with the Department of Health to provide the National Young Carers Coalition with an e-learning module for teachers and staff as part of the healthy schools approach to help better identify and support young carers.

Another issue that affects young carers—I am aware of the research by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers that my hon. Friend has mentioned—is bullying. Unacceptably, and incredibly, nearly two thirds of young carers are bullied at school. Perhaps they are often late, do not have time to take part in social activities or do not dress in the same way as others. All those things can mark them out as different from their peers. The Government, the Secretary of State for Education and I, take that issue very seriously. It is unacceptable for any child to be victimised, and even more so when they have the responsibilities of a young carer on their shoulders.

We can be proud of the vast majority of young people, but when bullies are identified we cannot just suspend them for a couple of days and allow them to saunter back into school to torment their victims again. We will put head teachers and teachers back in control and give them a range of tough new powers to deal with bullies. Head teachers will be able to take a zero-tolerance approach and will have the final say. We trust that head teachers will use those powers but I hope they do not have to. By educating young people to appreciate, respect and empathise with the pressures on people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in an adult caring role, I hope that we can eradicate that completely unacceptable form of bullying.

When bullying occurs, schools need to respond promptly and firmly. They need to apply disciplinary sanctions and work with bullies so that they are held to account for their actions and accept responsibility for the harm they have caused. Schools must also support those who are being bullied and, above all, they must educate bullying out of the school and classroom. All of us in society have a responsibility in that area. I hope that this debate and the other initiatives for young carers, such as the fantastic weekend at Fairthorne manor and the meetings in which we speak to young carers to understand their problems from the sharp end and look at how better we can accommodate them, will raise the profile of this issue, so that more people recognise the particular challenges faced by those young people.

The Department for Education will continue to work closely with the voluntary sector and local authorities to break down barriers to supporting young carers and their families effectively, which is the least we can do. We have a duty as a society to help those people, and frankly it is a false economy both socially and financially not to do that as actively as possible. I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this subject and putting his case so strongly. I hope that he is a convert, an advocate and an ambassador for the issue of young carers, and that he will ensure that as many people in his constituency—and beyond—are aware of the challenges faced and do their bit to make the role of young carers as easy as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

13:59

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Written Statements

Tuesday 18 January 2011

Economic and Financial Affairs Council

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

The Economic and Financial Affairs Council will be held in Brussels on 18 January 2011. The following items are on the agenda:

Presentation of the Presidency Work Programme

The Hungarian presidency will present its ECOFIN work programme for the first half of 2011.

Follow-up to the December European Council meeting

Council will discuss the outcomes of the European Council, where leaders agreed on a permanent mechanism to be established by euro area member states to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area as whole. The Government achieved their priorities on the European stability mechanism: that it will be for only euro area member states; replace the European financial stability facility (EFSF) and the European financial stabilisation mechanism (EFSM); and that in the future, article 122(2) TFEU will not be used for safeguarding the financial stability of the euro area.

Implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact

The Council will discuss the assessment of action taken by Malta in the context of its excessive deficit procedure on the basis of a communication from the Commission. Actions taken by other member states could also be assessed on the basis of the Commission’s autumn economic forecast and the fiscal notifications. The Government expect the Council to agree that Malta has taken effective action regarding its deficit, in line with Council recommendations.

Introduction of the euro in Estonia: Practical experience

In line with past practice, the Council will have an exchange of views following the introduction of the euro in Estonia on 1 January 2011.

Annual Growth Survey

The adoption by the European Commission of the annual growth survey will mark the beginning of the first cycle of the European semester. From now on, every year the Commission will present its growth survey covering fiscal, structural and macroeconomic issues. This communication, which will be presented to the European Parliament and the Council, will serve as a basis for the guidelines and conclusions drawn up by the March European Council with a view to the medium-term budgetary strategies and national reform programmes to be adopted in April. The Government are content with this approach, given that they secured special wording in the new code of conduct which allows the UK to submit its budget to the EU after it has been approved by Parliament, rather than in draft, as will be the case for other member states.

Review of draft National Reform Programmes (NRPs)

There will be an exchange of views on member states’ draft national reform programmes (NRPs), which set out member states’ reform priorities and plans and were submitted to the Commission in November. Full NRPs are due in April. The Government believe that the focus of the NRPs should be on tackling bottlenecks to growth.

Communication from the Commission: towards a Single Market Act

There will be an exchange of views on the Single Market Act, which was published on 27 October 2010, and is out for consultation until 28 February 2011. The Government support the single market and believe that future reforms should be strongly focused on measures which encourage growth.

Double Taxation Convention (United Kingdom and Mauritius)

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

A new protocol to the Double Taxation Convention with Mauritius was signed at Port Louis on 10 January 2011.

The text of the protocol has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and made available on HM Revenue and Customs’ website. The text will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.

Transfer of Royal Parks Agency

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)]

I am publishing today a statement regarding the transfer of the management of the eight royal parks and the Royal Parks Agency (RPA) from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to the Greater London Authority (GLA).

The current arrangements and the intended change

It is not widely known that managing the royal parks in London is the responsibility of a central Government Department, on behalf of the Queen. The team that runs the royal parks and reports to the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport is known as the Royal Parks Agency (TRP). We are proud of the work the agency has done for Londoners and for visitors to London. The royal parks are well known across the world and spending time in the parks is an essential part of a visit to the capital.

This statement is about how the parks will be made more accountable to the public through the Mayor. The Government do not propose any major changes in relation to how the parks should be managed, the standards to which they should be maintained, and what should be on offer in the parks to the public. Prior to transfer this will be summarised in a framework agreement. The royal parks are a cherished part of our national heritage as well as being a priceless resource for Londoners and visitors to London. That is understood by all involved in the proposed transfer of management.

At the moment the main line of accountability through Parliament is through Ministers and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We intend that in future this accountability should be through London’s Mayor since all the royal parks are in London. The Mayor is a well known figure who is elected every four years and is held accountable by Londoners for what he achieves for London and for visitors to London. Managing the royal parks would also fit well with the Mayor’s existing responsibility for tourism in London as well as his strategic responsibilities for the environment in London.

As a result, we are proposing that the current Royal Parks Agency team would become part of the Greater London Authority (GLA) and report to the Mayor. The GLA would have day-to-day responsibility for maintaining and managing the royal parks, including fulfilling statutory obligations. The Government will need to legislate when the opportunity arises to give the GLA equivalent management powers to those that the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport currently exercises, and to make other provisions needed to give effect to the policies set out in this statement.

The Royal Parks

There are eight royal parks managed by the agency, all within Greater London:

Bushy Park;

The Green Park;

Greenwich Park,

Hyde Park;

Kensington Gardens;

The Regent’s Park including Primrose Hill;

Richmond Park; and

St. James’s Park.

The Royal Parks Agency currently also manages other land in central London, such as Victoria Tower Gardens, Grosvenor Square Garden, and Brompton Cemetery, which are not part of the royal parks themselves. The Government are developing proposals with the GLA and others who, in place of the Royal Parks Agency, will be best placed to take responsibility for these open spaces and structures and monuments within them in future.

Management of the parks

The royal parks are owned by Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Crown. The parks were, in the main, originally royal hunting grounds and pleasure gardens and were subsequently made over for public use. The royal parks are part of the historic Crown lands and were put under the management of the Secretary of State’s predecessor in the middle of the 19th century.

The general power of management of the parks currently exercised by the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport derives from the power granted by section 22 of the Crown Lands Act 1851 (“the 1851 Act”) to the Commissioners of Works. Day-to-day management is carried out on behalf of the Secretary of State by the Royal Parks Agency, led by its chief executive. We propose that the Royal Parks Agency would no longer be an Executive agency of the DCMS but instead become an integral but distinct part of the GLA. Crown ownership of the royal parks would be maintained.

The Government do not propose to divide up the royal parks into separate parks operated by individual London boroughs. The Government’s aim is to strike an appropriate balance between decentralising power and maintaining the integrity of this historic estate. Greater accountability for the royal parks will be introduced at the level of London-wide government, where all the competing interests can be best addressed. The Mayor is accountable to people who live and work in the immediate vicinity of the parks. He is also accountable to Londoners from other areas who use the parks, and he is responsible for the quality and interest of what London as a whole contributes to the UK and offers tourists and visitors. The Mayor has recognised the strong interest of the royal household and the London boroughs in the good management of the parks and is considering options for a new governance structure for the parks as a whole which will offer them a stake in a new supervisory board.

The devolution of management responsibility for the royal parks to the GLA will also mean that there will be greater scrutiny of the management of royal parks on a regular basis. The London Assembly will be able to hold the actions of the Mayor to account and will have the power to summon officials and seek information.

Retaining oversight where there is a national interest

It is recognised that the royal parks are national assets and there may be occasions when it is still necessary for the Government to be able to ensure that national interests are safeguarded. The Secretary of State will have reserve powers to intervene if it appears that the national interest might be compromised. For example it will be essential to ensure that the current use of the parks and their roads for national ceremonial occasions should continue in a manner which befits their status. Such events must always be given priority over local matters or other events. This is one example of where the Secretary of State will be able to ensure, through a power of intervention, that the royal parks continue to be managed in the national interest and will be able to ensure that future management is not inconsistent with, nor undermines, the significance or status of the royal parks.

Regulation making powers

Currently, under the Parks Regulations (Amendment) Act 1926, the Secretary of State makes regulations that he considers necessary for securing the proper management of the parks. The principal regulations are the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997, and these cover matters such as the hours of opening of a park or of particular parts of it, carrying on any trade or business in the park, the conduct of persons using the park as regards, for example, littering, climbing trees, lighting fires, damaging property and keeping control of animals. These regulations are subject to the approval of Parliament. If any person fails to comply with, or acts in contravention of, any regulations, he is guilty of an offence against the Parks Regulation Act 1872 and is liable on summary conviction to a penalty. The regulations are enforced by the Metropolitan police. We intend to create an equivalent bye-law making power for the GLA. Instead of an approval by Parliament it would be subject to confirmation from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

Section 62 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act provides that regulations may also be made by the Secretary of State for imposing and recovering charges for leaving vehicles, or vehicles of any class, in the park. These regulations are subject to the approval of Parliament. We intend to create an equivalent byelaw making power for the GLA. Instead of an approval by Parliament it would be subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

Summary of the benefits of the transfer

By transferring responsibility to the GLA, reporting to London’s Mayor, we intend to ensure clear democratic accountability to Londoners on the management and operation of these historic parks and open spaces. Through the Mayor, there would be a visible public champion for the royal parks. Better accountability is likely to lead to management that is more responsive to the needs and expectations of park users and local people.

We intend the GLA to have the opportunity to include the future management of the parks in the broader plans which the Mayor develops for London. There will be close links to London-wide policy on a range of issues which affect the parks including planning, transport, environment, tourism and sport. The Mayor will be well placed to seek out opportunities for private sector support for the parks. The Mayor recognises that for successful transfer of management of the royal parks there is a need to ensure:

the national importance of the royal parks continues to be recognised;

the identity and character of the royal parks, which underpins their importance to local residents and visitors, is not adversely affected;

the high quality of the royal parks and their unique identity is maintained and enhanced where possible;

the wide range of interests within, and uses of the royal parks continue to be recognised and valued;

the management of the eight royal parks is retained by a single administration; and

local representation is adequately accounted for.

A policy framework will set out the parameters in which the GLA manage the parks.

There are a number of conditions which will be built into the framework. Key issues this will address include:

the parks must be managed on behalf of the nation as a whole;

the royal parks management structure will be an integral but a distinct part of the GLA;

it is likely a board will be established to manage the parks. This is likely to comprise a chair appointed by the Mayor of London. Members appointed by the Mayor are likely to include representatives from the London boroughs and a member appointed by or on behalf of the sovereign;

the natural and built features must be maintained to a high standard;

that the GLA must consult widely on any major changes to the royal parks;

that the GLA continue to honour the informal arrangements made by TRP with the royal household and the Army in relation to ceremonial use of the parks which should have overriding priority;

quiet recreation by the public remains the parks’ primary use;

that there will be no negative impacts on delivery of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games, the Diamond Jubilee, ceremonial and other state events;

that the transfer will not take place until post 2012 to minimise disruption to the Olympic and Paralympic games;

the level of funding the GLA will receive from the Government will be agreed at the outset but is subject to future spending reviews; and

monitoring arrangements will need to be put in place post transfer to ensure that any teething problems are dealt with.

Alcohol Sales (Coalition Commitment)

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

Today, we are announcing our intention to deliver on this commitment by introducing a ban on sales of alcohol below the rate of duty plus VAT.

The Government acknowledge the growing concern over how cheaply some alcohol drinks are being sold, and they are themselves concerned about the link between alcohol and crime and disorder—in many cases as a result of “pre-loading” in preparation for a night out.

As part of our consideration of how to deliver the coalition commitment to deliver a ban on below cost sales, the Home Office and Treasury have carried out respective reviews of alcohol pricing and taxation. These confirmed a consensus that pricing controls can be an effective way of both improving public health and reducing violent crime.

Banning the sale of alcohol below the rate of duty plus VAT is the best starting point for tackling the availability of cheap alcohol and will send a clear signal to retailers and the public that Government take this issue seriously. They will effectively set a minimum level below which alcoholic products cannot be sold and will stop the worst instances of deep discounting which result in alcohol being sold both cheaply and harmfully. Importantly this system will have a limited burden on business and can be delivered at low cost to the taxpayer.

We intend to take forward measures to deliver this commitment without delay subject to the Government’s regulatory assessment and clearance process.

Freedom of Information

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

On Friday 7 January 2011, the Ministry of Justice announced the Government’s plans to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act and to further increase transparency in public affairs. The Government will bring forward a number of measures to bring those plans into effect:

We will introduce a section 5 order under the Freedom of Information Act in the spring to bring the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the University and Colleges Admissions Service within the Act’s scope.

We will also consult a range of further bodies with a view to their inclusion in the Act by a further section 5 order later this year. This includes bodies as diverse as Examination Boards, Harbour Authorities, the Local Government Association and the NHS Confederation.

We will amend section 6 of the FOI Act in the Freedom Bill to end the anomaly where companies wholly owned by a single public authority are subject to the Act but those wholly owned by more than one public authority are not. We will also introduce measures to enhance the independence of the Information Commissioner’s Office in the same Bill.

We will ensure that, starting from 2013, Government and other public records are made available at the National Archives or other places of deposit 10 years sooner than at present by commencing amendments to the Public Records Act to reduce the 30-year rule to a 20-year rule. In tandem, we will also commence amendments to the FOI Act to reduce the time some types of information—including information contained in court records, and relating to ministerial correspondence and policy formulation—may be withheld.

Finally, we will also conduct a process of post-legislative scrutiny of the FOI Act to see how well the Act is working in practice and whether further changes should be made. It is important that this review of legislation, designed to promote openness and transparency, is itself undertaken in a transparent way and with the involvement of Parliament.

The measures outlined above will increase transparency. However, we must also ensure that information which it is not in the public interest to release is properly protected, and that we have proper regard to this country’s long-standing constitutional conventions. It is for this reason that on 16 January 2011, I made a commencement order to bring into effect changes made in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 to enhance the protection for information relating to communications with the royal family and royal household. The changes provide an absolute instead of a qualified exemption for information relating to communications with the sovereign, heir to the throne or second in line to the throne or those acting on their behalf. The exemption for other members of the royal family and members of the royal household remains qualified. The lifespan of the exemption changes from 30 to 20 years or the lifetime of the relevant member of the royal family plus five years, whichever is longer.

This amendment to the FOI Act is necessary to protect the long-standing conventions surrounding the monarchy and its records, for example the sovereign’s right and duty to counsel, encourage and warn her Government, as well as the heir to the throne’s right to be instructed in the business of Government in preparation for their future role as monarch. The changes will come into force tomorrow.

Copies of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (Commencement No. 4 and Saving Provision) Order 2011 (SI 2011 No. 46 (C. 3)) have been placed in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office.

Competition and Policy (Media, Broadcasting, Digital and Telecoms Sectors)

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

Responsibility for all competition and policy issues relating to media, broadcasting, digital and telecoms sectors has been transferred from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport.

This includes:

merger and competition cases in these sectors;

sponsorship of the telecoms sector, mobile and fixed;

sponsorship of all content industries, including computer games and publishing;

telecoms policy, including implementation of the EU framework;

broadband policy and delivery (including Broadband Delivery UK);

internet policy and governance, including implementation of the Digital Economy Act;

spectrum;

BT Pension Crown Guarantee;

responsibility for sponsorship of Ofcom (except in relation to postal regulation); and

full responsibility for the digital TV switchover and digital radio action plan.

The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills will retain responsibility for postal regulation; sponsorship of telecoms equipment manufacturing and the wider electronics, IT services and software sectors. He will also continue to work with the Cabinet Office as part of the national cyber-security programme.

The Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries, formerly a joint Minster, will now report solely to the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. He will continue to work closely with Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Driving Standards Agency (Cardiff)

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

The Driving Standards Agency (DSA) is responsible for setting standards and conducting theory and practical driving tests for motorists in England and Wales. The DSA is a trading fund which is funded by the fees received from customers, which are set at a level to recover its costs. The DSA therefore has a duty to ensure its costs are kept at the minimum possible level in the interests of its customers, while maintaining standards of service. That means being as efficient as possible in every area of work and considering closely any areas of spending which may not be necessary

Following a review of its operations the DSA has decided to close its area office at Caradog House in Cardiff.

The office has 87 staff who provide administrative support for DSA within Wales, the south of England and London areas—mainly in deployment of examiners, customer service and test centre property management and procurement activities.

Staff have been informed of the decision. There will now be a period of consultation with trade unions. The consultation will be completed by 19 April 2011.

Possible redeployment options for the staff concerned are being explored. It is intended to retain a small office to support some operational staff in the area. Other responsibilities will be transferred to DSA’s headquarters in Nottingham and northern area office in Newcastle.

Closure of Caradog House will not affect testing provision in Wales and the DSA will continue to provide services under its agreed Welsh language scheme.

Commissioners of Irish Lights

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

In my statement to the House on marine aids to navigation of 26 July 2010, Official Report, columns 75-76WS, I said that the Government believe a solution needs to be found as soon as possible to the imbalance of funding for marine aids to navigation in the Republic of Ireland. I am pleased to inform the House that the Irish Transport Minister and I have now reached an understanding on the reform of the funding of the Commissioners of Irish Lights.

The Commissioners of Irish Lights is the general lighthouse authority which has provided marine aids to navigation for the benefit of mariners visiting and passing the shores of the whole island of Ireland for hundreds of years. The organisation has come to symbolise the close friendship and shared history of our nations.

For many years, the funding of the Commissioners of Irish Lights work has been a joint undertaking, its costs being met primarily from light dues income from commercial shipping raised in both our jurisdictions and paid into the general lighthouse fund.

This funding mechanism has been the subject of debate for a number of years and there have been calls to facilitate a more equitable arrangement, whereby the costs of the work of the Commissioners in the Republic of Ireland are funded solely from sources of income there.

The Irish Transport Minister and I have reached an understanding that we will aim to see the Commissioners of Irish Lights self-financing by 2015-16. This understanding will facilitate the long-term sustainable funding of the Commissioners of Irish Lights and ensure the continued co-operation of the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland in the provision of marine aids to navigation.