Televised Election Debates

Adam Holloway Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Bone]

I will come to that specific point, because it is a very good example.

I am very grateful to Sky News, because it has done something really useful: it has got the wider public thinking about these debates. We cannot arrange them two or three months before a general election; we have to have an independent commission, because the problem is that the party with the advantage does not want to have a TV debate. The only time we get a debate is, for example, if the Prime Minister thinks that the Government are behind and the Leader of the Opposition wants publicity. That is exactly what happened with Gordon Brown. I would suggest that he thought it right to have a debate because he was behind.

I thought that the debate between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg was very good. When we go out campaigning during a general election, we have a campaign session in the morning and in the afternoon, and between 5 pm and 7 pm in the evening. I remember getting back one evening after campaigning, going to the gym, putting on a headset and listening to the debates. The only thing that I remember really is the phrase, “I agree with Nick”, but the debates were very useful in helping electors to make up their minds on how to vote.

[Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentioned Nick Clegg’s participation in that debate, but that was part of the problem raised by both the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) and my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). Should not the debate be for those with a credible possibility of becoming Prime Minister? What we ended up with then was Cleggmania and a disastrous coalition Government.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend might say that, but I couldn’t possibly do so. However, I certainly agree with the first bit. When I promote my private Member’s Bill, I will explain why the debate should be between only the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition: in a leaders’ debate, we look at who is going to be Prime Minister.

Those of us in this Chamber get some spin-off advantages from leaders’ debates. For us constituency candidates, there is nothing worse than to be told that we are to get a visit from the leader of our party, because we know that we will lose days of campaigning as a result. First, we will be asked to find a suitable venue that ties into everything the leader wants to promote. Desperately, we find somewhere, talk to people and they agree, but then the party officials say, “No, we don’t want that”, and ask for something else. Eventually, they decide on somewhere else and they send down an advance team of young people who boss us around and tell us how to run things in our own constituency—that is another day lost. In time, the leader turns up and we get a PR event—they used to be called “Cameron Direct”—where people ask difficult questions of the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition.

But that was not the case: all those questions were planted. There was no real debate at all and we lost three or four days of campaigning. If we had leaders’ debates, that would at least give us a few days on which they would not be able to visit us in our constituencies.

Where I disagree slightly is with the idea that leaders’ debates dominate the decision making of the British public. I do not think that that is the case, nor that there is a national swing any more. Voters are much more savvy now, voting on what is in their interests. The last general election had all sorts of strange results, but if votes had been determined purely by the party leaders and what they said, the results would have been much more uniform. The debates do not make that sort of difference, but they are an important part of the democratic process.

Those who argue against televised debates say they are all about performance, not substance. Is that not what people used say before the Houses of Parliament were televised? There were exactly the same arguments, and we now know that they were completely wrong.

I really wanted to talk about my private Member’s Bill on the televised leaders’ debates commission, which was given its First Reading in 2017 and is scheduled to be debated on 15 March. It is the second Bill on that day, the first being the Prime Minister (Accountability to House of Commons) Bill, which also stands in my name. I assure the House that if that Bill is not moved, the first Bill will be on the leaders’ debate. We have an opportunity in March to move the whole process forward. The Government have little legislative time because of Brexit, but this is a private Member’s Bill. On 15 March, if nobody objects, we can move forward and make the Bill an Act of Parliament. I hope that the Opposition and the Government will allow the House to make its own decision on this matter and not try to block the Bill with some parliamentary procedure.

Much of what Sky News says is already proposed in my Bill: to set up an independent commission responsible for holding a number of leaders’ debates during the regulated period. My Bill calls for three debates: one with the leaders of all the parties represented in the House of Commons at the time of the general election, and the second and third between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) mentioned, we want a debate between people who are likely to be Prime Minister, although I do not want to leave out the smaller parties.

There is a problem that I accept: by having a debate between the leaders of the parties in the House of Commons, not every party will be included. But would we really want a communist party or the British National party in the debate? I think not. There was a serious problem with the UK Independence party, when at the height of its power it had no MPs but clearly had very large support. I would leave it to the commission to decide whether to bring any other party leaders into the debate, but the leader of any party represented in the House would have to attend. By the way, attendance would not be optional; the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition could not offload it to someone. No; they would have to attend.

People say the debates would take up lots of the party leaders’ time, but if they had to prep for weeks on end they could not be much good as a leader. They should know what they think, and be able to go out and debate. Under my Bill, there would be proper debates. The moderator would ask a question, but the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition could debate with each other, back and forth. There would be an actual debate, not rehearsed lines delivered before they moved on.

We can argue that we do not have a presidential system, but we have moved a very long way towards a presidential system since Tony Blair. I remember in the last election, Conservative MPs were all there, standing with Theresa. That was the message—it went down well—because the leader is so associated with local politics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

I will park other electoral reform, but the public want this particular reform; the broadcasters want it, I argue most MPs want it and it is an opportunity for the Government to do the right thing. We need a bit of good will at the moment, so it would be a nice thing to do.

I thank Members who will come to support my Bill and those who will oppose it.

[Adam Holloway]

Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the extraordinary and supremely able editor of Sky News, my friend from ITN John Ryley? He has been the driving force behind this.

[Mr Bone]

I was supposed to say that earlier. I mentioned Sky News, but it is John Ryley and he has done really well. I also thank Adam Boulton for what he has been doing at Sky News. He is always fair and balanced when it comes to Brexit.

Thank you for listening to me, Mr Sharma. I am interested to hear what other Members have to say; hopefully, I can incorporate some of their comments into the Bill.

EU Exit Negotiations

Adam Holloway Excerpts

Thursday 15th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

No.

[Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister feel that she has listened to her officials while sidelining her Brexit Secretaries, and is she now disobeying the instruction of my constituents in Gravesham?

[The Prime Minister]

I say to my hon. Friend that the answer to both of his questions is no. I have worked with my Brexit Secretaries and with officials and the negotiating team throughout this process, and the deal that we are proposing does deliver on the instruction of the British people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Adam Holloway Excerpts

Wednesday 27th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The report by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy concluded that the directors, not the Government, were responsible for the fact that Carillion failed and that the Government had made a competent job of clearing up the mess. I refer the hon. Gentleman again to the fact that independent research commissioned by the last Labour Government showed savings to taxpayers of, on average, between 20% and 30% from outsourcing, compared with undertaking tasks in house. That is money that can go back into frontline public services.

[Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

2. Whether he has made an assessment of the operation of recent voter ID pilots; and if he will make a statement.

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

7. Whether he has made an assessment of the operation of recent voter ID pilots; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)]

We are encouraged by the data from the returning officers and the statements they have made indicating that the pilots were a successful test of the implementation of voter ID. The Electoral Commission will publish its evaluation in July and the Cabinet Office will conclude its own evaluation at the same time.

[Adam Holloway]

Does the Minister agree that additional measures should be brought in, given that the issue affects the vulnerable, the elderly and, in my constituency, ethnic minorities?

[Chloe Smith]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment, which I share, to helping voters to be able to cast their ballots in a way that also protects the integrity of the wider system. Let us never forget that that is not only an individual advantage, but in the collective interest.

EU Referendum: Electoral Law

Adam Holloway Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I hope he will produce the evidence that he says he has to hand, and allow the matter to be investigated thoroughly. Otherwise he will be at risk of simply trying to muddy the water, and I am sure that he is not trying to do that.

If the Electoral Commission did indeed interpret the law correctly, we should note that Open Democracy also states:

“As a registered Leave campaigner, Grimes was allowed to spend”

£625,000

“during the referendum. Earlier this year a Vote Leave source told a parliamentary committee that it had enlisted Mr Grimes’s BeLeave campaign because it was close to breaching its £7 million spending limit and wanted to ensure all the money it had been given would be used. Under UK electoral law, this is fine. The Electoral Commission has ruled that such donations are allowed—so long as there was no ‘plan or other arrangement’ between Darren Grimes and Vote Leave about how the money was spent.”

In other words, one organisation, Vote Leave, can pass a huge amount of money to another, just before it would break the legal limit if it carried on spending. Although that second organisation is very familiar with the activities of the Vote Leave organisation—indeed, co-located with it, using the same supplier for the delivery of targeted messages and, presumably, the same or a remarkably similar specification for the work that Vote Leave pays for—the law says that the two are not acting in concert. If that is a correct interpretation, or indeed if that is how the Electoral Commission will interpret the law once it has considered the new evidence, I must say that I think the law is an ass and will need to be changed, because what it means, in effect, is that there is no limit to the amount that third parties can spend on supporting the main designated campaign organisation in any future referendums.

[Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

I would love to hear what the “new evidence” is. It is coming from some very junior people who are currently making contradictory claims on different television programmes. Let us hear what it is, and let us leave it to the Electoral Commission. It has already cleared this twice.

[Tom Brake]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not concentrating on what I said earlier, and I forgive him if that is the case. I said very clearly that the new evidence had been provided by three people who were at the heart of BeLeave and Vote Leave, and who were probably the only people who were working for BeLeave. Let us face it: this was not a large organisation. It was an organisation that had a handful of people working for it. I suspect that they know more about BeLeave’s activities than anyone in this place, which is why I have referred the matter to the Electoral Commission and the police so that they can carry out appropriate investigations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

I agree, and on the email it says “official”, so there can be no question that the Prime Minister did not know what Stephen Parkinson was saying. I have written to the Government today to demand that this young man be apologised to for the actions that have been taken. That is the very least that we can expect. Most reasonable people in this country will be wondering why Stephen Parkinson has not already been sacked, quite frankly, and in many other companies and areas of life, that is exactly what would happen.

[Adam Holloway]

Look, let the Electoral Commission do its investigation. Why is this House trying to pre-empt it? No one should be sacked until we actually have a decision.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I was not talking about the Electoral Commission investigation. I was not talking about the allegations of collusion between Vote Leave and BeLeave. I was talking about a senior official of the Government exposing somebody for being gay in response to their blowing the whistle on what has been happening in Government. That speaks to the character of this Government, who have hours, rather than days, to claw this back and put it right. I hope that when the Minister gets to her feet she will say that the Government will respond to these concerns, speak to Mr Parkinson and take the appropriate action—and I cannot see any other action possible than to say that this man is no longer fit to hold office in government.

What happens when the Electoral Commission does its investigation and comes to its conclusion? Even if the collusion is proven and the regulations were breached, it will not change the result of the referendum; it will not be overturned. Some on the pro-Brexit side seem to believe that the referendum was mandatory on Parliament and the Government. It never was—it was an advisory referendum—so even were the result to be challenged, it would not call into question the many decisions on article 50 and leaving the EU that Parliament has already voted on. I do believe, however, that it would add further poison to the well of British democracy, coming on top of the most mendacious campaign in political history—that fought in 2016—when people were lied to about what it would mean to leave the EU.

Not only were these lies told—lies that were not worth the bus they were written on, frankly—but the regulations and laws governing the conduct of the referendum might have been broken. The Minister needs to reassure us that the Electoral Commission will have all the resources it requires to get to the bottom of this matter. That said, I think that there is already enough evidence—because I presume that the whistleblowers’ statements will be sworn under oath—for this matter to be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service and for a police investigation to take place. That investigation needs to interview under caution the players in this debate, including those who now sit in government holding the highest offices in the land.

That brings me to the Foreign Secretary, who has chosen not to be present. Others have commented on how quick off the mark he was to denounce the allegations and the new information. I am left wondering whether this was just his attempt to be the English Donald Trump or whether this is someone using one of the highest offices in the land to bring their power and authority to bear to intimidate those who would criticise him and make these allegations, and that is very worrying indeed. I want an assurance from the Government today that if the Electoral Commission finds that there has been collusion and breach, those Cabinet Ministers involved in the management of the Vote Leave campaign will resign from office and take no further part in government. It would be ridiculous and would undermine our credibility if the Foreign Secretary and others, having been involved in a breach of our electoral law, were then to seek to hold the highest office in the land.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) raised a very important matter. As we uncover this, we will find more traces of dark money creeping into our electoral system, and we need the utmost transparency if we are to resist it. I therefore invite the Minister to comment on what action she and her colleagues will be taking with regard to the Constitutional Research Council and the money it siphoned to the Democratic Unionist party for the Brexit campaign. This is an organisation that has no website, no published report, no published accounts—it is the very definition of shady, and it is not something that we should accept in our democracy.