Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Martin of Springburn

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Martin of Springburn (CB)]

I have often been careful in the past to remind Members in the other place that they should not use amendments for Second Reading purposes, but perhaps I can stray, because the expenses situation has been mentioned by my noble friend and others and I find it interesting with regard to the recall of MPs. When I came into this House, some Members who had served in the other place were quick to condemn those who were, for want of a better word, exposed in the expenses scandal and said that it was a terrible thing. It was a terrible thing because five years of expenses were exposed at one time, because of freedom of information and the way it was handled. I have often thought this to myself and now say it out loud: if only some of those ex-Members who are now Members of the House of Lords and who were quick to criticise had been prepared to explicitly produce their bank statements, we might have been able to see what they claimed in parliamentary expenses.

However, that is not the reason I am on my feet. Forgive me if I do not get the first name right, but I remember Harold McCusker, who went to jail on a principle regarding the Troubles in Northern Ireland. He had a different point of view from myself and the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, but I got on well with Harold McCusker. After he came out of jail, he said to me that it is a very humbling experience when the door is slammed on a prison cell, and you are in there wondering whether you have done the right thing. I often read the lovely articles that the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, writes when he speaks about recall and I ask him to think about the following point that I would like to make about expenses.

The media have their favourites—let us not kid ourselves. I go back to the expenses. There was a Member of Parliament—and good luck to him; I do not like using names, and in fact, I think there is a rule that we should not criticise Members of Parliament in the other place—who got into serious difficulty. Members of the media publicly said, and they were entitled to do so, “Well, you see, he was gay. He did not want his mother to find out about it”—I am not going to hammer this home—“because he was a Catholic”. Well, my mother brought up five children, and she was the most devout Catholic I ever met and am ever likely to meet. I tell you this: she would have known if one of her sons was gay. Then I look at the sum concerned, quite a fantastic sum of money. The power of forgiveness is important, and I do not deny anybody the right to defend someone who has erred. I think it was Robert Burns who said:

“Then gently scan your brother man,

Still gentler sister woman”,

and if you find that they have erred:

“To step aside is human”.

Here is the point I make to the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, and maybe he can think about it with some of his friends in the media. There was a man in the other place who went to prison. Those of us who were dealing with that individual before he went to prison knew that he should have been cared for with regards to alcoholism. He should have been in the Priory or some other institution. I speak as a teetotaller. At that time I spoke to parliamentary Whips about his difficulties. Anyone who knows about alcoholism knows that one of the difficulties with an alcoholic is you sometimes cannot tell them that they are their own worst enemy. For a small amount, he went to jail. Not one individual in the media stood up and said, “That man needs help rather than prison”.

Here is where I go when we come to recall. You get a recall, and let us say that you get people in a marginal seat. There could be a single issue in that constituency at that time. It could be a threatened hospital closure or some other big issue. Then mob rule can prevail.

The other place is entitled to do what it wants. Our great strength is to draw on our experience and the life that we have had and to say, “Watch, and be very careful what you are doing”. The aftermath of the expenses fiasco—the debacle, the scandal—has meant that it introduced IPSA. No one can even purchase as much as a postage stamp or a half a pint of milk but it has got to be made public. There is talk and complaint about that. The rigid system that exists there has come out of the difficulties of the past. We have a serious problem. Any time that I have been involved in legislation where both sides of the House and the third party are in agreement, then within a short space of time we rue the day that we made that decision.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this has turned out to be a rather more interesting discussion on the amendments than I had anticipated. I do not want to repeat my Second Reading speech, but I remind the House that particularly this third arm, if you like, was added by our party with great support in the other place. It was not added because some of us wanted to be Ministers. In fact, when some of us supported it, we were not even in this House. It was because those outside Parliament were deeply shocked when they saw MPs doing things which, if they were in any other profession, would have lost them their jobs. They saw these people still turning up at their place of work the day after they had done things that any other employer would have dismissed them for.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Martin of Springburn

Tuesday 28th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Martin of Springburn (CB)]

My Lords, let me say briefly that I have the highest regard for the charities in the United Kingdom, but I also have a deep concern about how general elections and constituency elections are fought. My worry is about the single-issue organisations that can be created. Some charities go back 100 or 150 years, but a single-issue organisation could be created this evening with the aim of undermining a candidate in a constituency.

As was mentioned last time, there might be a legitimate argument about saving a hospital. However, I can point to the fact that, in one of the English constituencies, a government Minister was defeated by a candidate who was fighting on a “Save the hospital” campaign. I have no argument against that candidate, who did the legitimate thing by standing, getting enough assenters for a nomination form and nailing his colours to the mast in saying, “I am the candidate fighting against the hospital closure”.

That is one thing, but if you get a single-issue organisation that starts up a year before a general election —bear in mind that we know the date of that election—then that is something unique. Such organisations can say, “Right, we’ll get a campaign started within a constituency”, and they can spend more money than any individual candidate. A noble Lord says that that is not true, but they can. They could spend perhaps £16,000. When I stood for re-election as Mr Speaker, my memory is that I could spend £12,000, but they could spend more.

Okay, we live in a democracy, but if a single-issue organisation is on the go, we are entitled to ask that it give an account of how it spends its money and where it gets its money from—that is also important. If the organisation is campaigning on, say, a hospital issue, it is allowed to canvass, to go on the doorsteps and to arrange press conferences, rallies and all the rest of it. When Parliament is dissolved, it might say, “We have a good case for putting up a candidate”. If in those circumstances it goes from being a single-issue organisation to putting up a candidate, it could have spent far more than any single candidate.

We are talking about what is, often, power without responsibility. I cling to the argument about hospitals. If a Conservative candidate says, “I want to save the hospital”, the question that will be posed to that candidate is, “Well, what other hospital in the area will you close down?”, because the budget will not support every hospital in the area. A single-issue organisation has the power but not the responsibility. Okay, I agree that we live in a democracy, but it is not rocket science to record how many phone calls were made or how many canvassers were put out, particularly in these days of electronic systems.

I give to charities like anyone else, but once some of them have your name they soon know how to get it on the record and make sure that you get a circular every month—it can be “Dear Michael” or “Dear Lord Martin” or whatever suits them. I worry about how we might distort a parliamentary election, and I think that what the Government are putting up is a safer bet.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, the problem with including staff costs is the issue of workability. As we have heard from the NCVO, ACEVO and the people who run these charities, what is in the Bill at the moment is simply not workable. As I said earlier, the Bill asks these voluntary organisations to divvy up their staff costs, including national insurance and pension contributions, not only by which part of the country they live in but by what chunk of their work has gone on campaigning on an issue that subsequently attains high political saliency. This is not even about keeping records, given that the organisation may have to go back and look at something.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Martin of Springburn

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

My Lords, I come in briefly, having listened to the arguments surrounding this amendment. The noble Baroness is quite right that we cannot get perfection, but I wish that we could put on record and give due consideration to the men and women who, when a general election or municipal elections come, put their names forward as parliamentary candidates. I had the good fortune to be in a constituency where, although I hated the term “safe Labour seat” and cringed whenever anyone said it because the seat had to be worked at, I had significant admiration for those candidates who came into that constituency and said that they were flying the flag for their party—Conservatives, Liberals or the SNP. Remember that many of us get to our feet and talk about the new democracies in Africa and those that used to be behind the iron curtain, but one thing that we have to do as parliamentarians is to teach people how to be parliamentary candidates.

That brings me on to these campaign groups and it is why I asked the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, whether they might be registered charities. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said that they might be, if I picked him up correctly. Let me look at the registered charities which embark on campaigns. I know that the situation is different now when a general election is called, because we have got ourselves this five-year election term and people see that we can go right to the wire on a given date, five years from the previous election. In the old days, we used to sit in the tea room in the House of Commons wondering when the Prime Minister was going to go to the country, which meant that the campaign groups could not put the kettle on and say that it would be on a certain date—even those who were closest did not know that. Now that we have this five-year situation, perhaps I might send a message out to people in charities that they should use their heads. If they want to campaign, they have four years and three months, I think, in which to campaign. They should let the general election take its course with the parliamentary candidates because there is a danger here.

Let us take hospital closures, which the noble Lord mentioned. We all hate to see hospital closures, but we know that certain people have sinister reasons for being involved in a campaign, which is to embarrass a certain parliamentary candidate. I have heard the term “putting up score-cards” used during this debate. Some of these campaigns put up score-cards and say, “This is a good candidate, who has campaigned against the closure of a given hospital”. What if it was a Minister in that constituency who was holding office and had another portfolio? That Minister would not be allowed to say, “Don’t close that hospital”, yet some of these campaigners choose not to see that and say, “This is the good guy who is prepared to campaign, while your sitting Member of Parliament has been silent”. We know full well that the reason he or she has been silent may be that they are holding the office of Secretary of State. They could be holding the office of Prime Minister. However, what they have been doing in the background may have been excellent in fighting for the local community and its hospital.

I say to the charities that they really have to watch what they are doing. Every time I give to a charity, I am asked whether I am a taxpayer. If I am, the Inland Revenue will give money to that charity, so a high proportion of what charities are receiving involves the public purse and they should be careful about what they are doing. Also, it might be argued that a campaign body in an area that has no charitable status may call on other groups that have charitable status to support it.

I do not know if I am articulating my point properly, but we must give serious thought to the fact that decent men and women get into these constituencies during the general election and fight in good faith. It is wrong for some of these campaign groups to get involved when the democratic process, such as a general election, is on.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I endorse the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the work of what by way of shorthand we call the Harries commission. The noble and right reverend Lord and his colleagues have done both the charity sector and this House an enormous service.

As we have emphasised, we have two problems about the Bill’s brand-new constituency limits, which obviously apply to the wider issues covered by the Bill, which might in theory have an effect in one or more constituencies. The major problem has already been articulated: it is not their intention or purpose, in the words of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, but their workability. Charities and campaigners simply do not organise or do their accounts or even think in constituency terms. They focus on the proposed path of the HS2, the flight paths around Heathrow, the ground under where fracking will take place, the location of badger sets or the location of a polluting factory. That is the focus for their work.

For them, therefore, a requirement to record and account for their staff time and expenditure on a whole new geographical basis—indeed, on boundaries which are probably unknown to their accounts department—will be highly problematic. It will add enormous bureaucracy when, as we have said before, the Government are elsewhere trying to reduce red tape. Accounting for expenditure on the basis that it might have an effect on a constituency would require those charities and other groups to develop a whole new financial accounting system, a demand which surely cannot be achieved even by the new and welcome date of September.

Our second concern is also one that has already been mentioned. It is the worry of the Electoral Commission about whether the new constituency limits are enforceable in the timescale of an election. There is nothing worse than having a rule or a law that is unenforceable, because it undermines the rest of the law. The Electoral Commission considers that Amendment 11 would at least reduce its enforceability worries, although it still fears that it would often be difficult to get the information and evidence for any breach of constituency-level spending and deal with it before polling day. Amendment 11, which, as we have heard, limits the new reporting requirements to telephone calls, literature to households and physical distribution in a defined area, seems to us eminently sensible. That sort of spending is preplanned and easy to measure. As the Electoral Commission says in supporting the amendment,

“We see benefits in defining the scope of activity covered by the constituency controls more narrowly than in Part 2 of the Bill generally”.

Given the widespread support across the House for the amendment, I think that the Government would be well advised either to heed the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and accept the amendment or, at the very least, to undertake not to implement their new constituency rules until after the 2015 election. That would give charities time to think about whether it is possible to do their accounting in that way, and it would give the Electoral Commission the opportunity to sort out those demands on enforceability. I think that the former course is better—to accept the amendment. We certainly support it.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Martin of Springburn

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, Amendment 3 stands in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. The amendment is simple. Its purpose is to maintain the annual canvass. Clause 7(2)(b), which we seek to delete, would authorise the Minister to abolish the annual canvass. This long-standing canvass is a critical tool in compiling the register, and is the only way of judging whether the other systems that take information from a variety of data sources are working. Without the canvass there will be no check on the completeness of the register. All those experienced in this area are adamant that the old-fashioned canvass remains a crucial tool in locating citizens domiciled in Great Britain. Houses do not move. Ensuring that eligible residents are on the list is best done via the canvass. Nothing else competes.

Furthermore, we are concerned about the impact of the removal of the annual canvass in Northern Ireland, which the Electoral Commission considers contributed to the dip in registration there. Jenny Watson, head of the Electoral Commission, stated in her covering letter to the commission’s report on Northern Ireland that,

“the processes … employed by the Chief Electoral Officer … are unable to keep pace with either people moving home or people becoming newly eligible to … register. … We need robust process to respond to people moving … or becoming … eligible to… register … Any decision to remove the annual canvass in Great Britain … must be seriously thought through to ensure that any change would not lead to a drop in registration”.

Anna Carragher, the Electoral Commissioner for Northern Ireland, described how its Chief Electoral Officer,

“was no longer required to conduct a fresh canvass of electors every year”.

She commented that,

“data matching techniques … insufficient for maintaining an accurate and complete register”.

The report on Northern Ireland is clear. It states:

“Data matching initiatives have not been able to compensate for a full canvass of all households”.

Despite this, and after that report, Chloe Smith, Parliamentary Secretary of the Cabinet Office, in a debate in the other place last week, continued to place her faith in data matching, claiming it would open up a whole new world of possibilities for how we might annually register people to vote. She said:

“I do not think a situation in which the annual canvass is less effective than new methods is beyond our lifetimes. I do not suggest that I know what these methods might be”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/13; col. 234WH]

She does not know but, nevertheless, she wants the power in a Minister’s hands to abolish the annual canvass. This is not reason enough to keep the power in the Bill as a kind of “Just in case”, “Well, perhaps” or “Here’s hoping we have a better method”. Does the Minister accept that Ms Smith’s faith in data matching directly contradicts the evidence of those in charge of and evaluating the Northern Ireland experience? We need evidence that the Government are learning from Northern Ireland and have recognised the centrality of the annual canvass.

While the Government have said they currently have no plans to abolish the annual canvass if there is nothing superior with which to replace it, they still want to legislate in this Bill to allow the change in the future. We remain deeply unconvinced by their argument. The continuing presence in the Bill of the power for a government Minister to abolish the annual canvass is potentially damaging to our democracy. The House, I am sure, will be concerned about giving an elected politician, in government, the power to dispense with this crucial democratic tool. I hope the Minister will therefore accept this important amendment and agree to remove the power from the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness. Many of us in this Chamber who have been involved in canvassing for by-elections, general elections and local government elections will know that, while it is an enjoyable experience, not every place you go to is a semi-detached or detached dwelling. Sometimes you find yourself on commercial premises and are surprised that someone is resident above a garage or a haulage company. Sometimes you are greeted by a friendly doberman or a territorial rottweiler when you approach to do a canvass.

Canvassing is no easy task—it is by no means a light job—and the men and women who take it on are the unsung heroes of the people within the democratic process who try to get a decent register together. Albeit that they are paid, they do it on a voluntary basis. Once the task is finished, they are paid a sum of money and they are gone. It would be very sad if we did away with this system of gathering votes because, as has been said before, including by me, every time there is a boundary change there is always a complaint that the electoral roll is inaccurate. These men and women go about the business of ensuring that there is great accuracy and, as I say, that is not an easy task.

The Minister might say that it would go through only with a parliamentary order that could be debated in both Houses. However, we all know that a Minister, quite unintentionally, could put the order through on a day when the work of the House is light or perhaps during the wash-up period when there is a lot of other activity. I think that the amendment is worth supporting.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Martin of Springburn

Monday 29th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I will address the two amendments in this group in my name and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. They concern the new civil penalty in the Bill, separate from the criminal offence, with, as we have heard, a possible penalty of £1,000. The civil penalty is for failure to co-operate with the electoral registration officer.

It remains a serious civic matter for people to be on the register, not least of course for jury service, for which nearly all are eligible, although not myself and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. Having been on the judicial bench—in a small way in my case, as a magistrate—we are I think are excluded from jury service. However, for the vast majority, of course this is the important source for identifying those who will serve on juries. Also, as democrats, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, it is an important right that everyone who has the vote—for which many have fought in the past—is able to exercise that right. They need to be on the register because they need to be able to vote at the moment at which the mood so takes them. Often, that may be only days before an election, when they suddenly want to kick out whoever is there or, on the contrary, maintain the incumbent; or in some way influence the Government or the local authority. However, it is only if they have registered at the appropriate point, rather than a day or so before the election, that their right can be exercised. It is for this reason that it is so important for us to get this registration accurate and complete as early as possible.

We will hear—and already have heard—a lot about the importance of the register being complete, but it behoves all of us to play our part in that by responding to the request for information from an electoral registration officer, so that we can, if eligible, be correctly entered on to the register. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, suggested it could perhaps be done by statutory instrument but the significance of Parliament writing it into law in the Bill and deciding the penalty for failure to comply with this part of our civic responsibility should not be underemphasised. For that reason, Amendment 29 would remove from Schedule 3 the power to determine the amount of the civil penalty by regulation and Amendment 23 would write into the Bill that it should be £100.

The exact amount perhaps need not detain us this afternoon, although it surely should be at the very least the same as a parking ticket, which some in the Committee may find themselves frequently having to pay. We can perhaps discuss the exact amount some other time but surely the principle is that Parliament, with this new system of registration, should fix the amount clearly in the Bill as an indication of the seriousness with which it views registration. That is the point that we want to make.

I shall speak to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and his birthday compatriot the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I also wish him a happy birthday, and I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, is not here to pass her wishes on; if she is watching, we can wish her a happy 80th birthday today. I will add emphasis to what has been said about those civil penalties and their use by registration officers. Particularly for the initial use of this brand-new system of registration, it will be important to impress on registration officers the significance and importance of the task that they are undertaking on our behalf, in part so that they communicate this effectively to all those with whom they will have dealings in obtaining and then registering relevant information. If individual electoral registration is to be the success that we all hope for, everyone must play their part. With the penalties being the only real weapon in the hands of those on whom we will depend to produce the register, we must give the EROs the backing to employ civil penalties if need be, and particularly the ability to have the threat of using them to the full.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

My Lords, we are in Committee and it is therefore good to explore these matters. I am worried about there being a penalty because when I was first allowed to vote at the age of 21 I was a journeyman on a journeyman’s salary. Now, however, people can vote at 18. We are talking about a young person of 18 having a fine imposed on him or her for not co-operating, and I worry about that. If the amendment said that it was to be someone over 21, I would be less concerned, but I worry because I have had experience of arguing and campaigning against the poll tax. Bearing in mind that boys and girls of 18—young adults—had to pay that the poll tax, which was had changed from a household debt to an individual debt, one of our big worries was that they would not have the assets to do so. We were proved to be right: when a youngster went into arrears, the parents would bear the responsibility of the cost so that the family would not be shamed by the sheriff’s officers turning up.

The danger here is that we are going to impose fines en bloc on anyone who is an elector. It might be argued that, previously, the householder had responsibility and that there was a fine there anyway. However, when someone takes a on home they realise that there are responsibilities tied to it. At 18 years of age, however, I can tell your Lordships that there was not much in the way of assets in my situation. Usually, as an apprentice, when you got your wages on a Friday, they were spent by Monday morning. That is what is going to happen to some of these youngsters.

Another thing is that when trying to get some young people to co-operate with filling in a form, we might cast our minds back to when we were 18 ourselves. The form that we got every year was a tax form and we usually did not bother filling it in because someone would tell us, “If you don’t fill it in, they tax you as a single person”, and we were single people. This amendment would cause problems to the registration officer because it is a catch-all. We are going to have concerns about those between 18 and 21. I would certainly be worried about supporting anything that would impose a fine on young people. The thing with electoral registration is that if you are not on the electoral roll, you cannot exercise your right to vote. I know that if a youngster should complain, “I’m not able to vote and I’m not happy with our Member of Parliament or local councillor”, their parents or someone else—even the electoral officer—might put this to them: “That’s your fault because you did not bother to fill up the forms”. But to impose a fine and to compare it with a car parking fine is erroneous. When you get a car, you have at least made a certain amount of funds available to yourself; that is not necessarily the case with a young person. When you go on the road in a car, you run the risk of putting it in a place where it should not be and getting a parking fine. If you put two hours’ worth of money in a meter and you are there for two-and-a-half hours, you take the chance that a parking warden will catch you. It is not a comparison of like with like. For those reasons, I would be uneasy to support a fine for that age group.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Martin of Springburn

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I am tempted to talk about the word “consensus”. I said on day one of the Committee that New Zealand had a three-year term of Parliament. When the cut in the number of UK seats was devised as a consensus between the two parts of the coalition, I think that one lot wanted to get rid of 60 seats and the other wanted 100 seats, so they went for a compromise of 50. On the basis of that, I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that perhaps there could be a compromise here but it could be three years rather than four or five.

I turn more seriously to the question of four years. As the noble and learned Lord has reminded us, the Minister acknowledged at Second Reading that this was a judgment and there was no absolutely right or wrong answer. I feel that the Government have made the wrong judgment in going for five years rather than four.

There is a lot to quote from earlier debates. I have chosen the quote from Herbert Asquith that is in the report, partly because it was exactly 100 years and one month ago today when he said that we should be desirous of a House of Commons that is,

“always either fresh from the polls which 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, Commons, 21/2/1911; col. 1749.]

More recently, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, said on 1 March:

“as the election comes up accountability is a very, very strong thing indeed”.—[Official Report, 1/3/11; col. 1045.]

For any MP, he went on to say, an election is very effective for accountability.

The Deputy Prime Minister, who has already been quoted, claimed that the Government’s ambitious programme would transfer power away from Parliament and empower people. So we have to ask why the Government want to diminish accountability by extending the life of the other place from four years to five. It cannot be about increasing accountability. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, has suggested, to think about two periods of five years—that is, 10 years —is what makes me think that the figure of five is wrong. Ten years seems to be too long. Someone just short of their 18th birthday might have to wait until they were 23 to vote, and they would be 28 before they could vote again. The period from 18 to 28 is the whole of the setting down of one’s life, but the Government are suggesting having only one vote during that time.

Similarly, imagine a Government with a small majority or indeed no overall control. It would be extremely hard to run the country like that, as I know, but the Government would be denied the right to go for a working majority, somewhat dreading every death or resignation and the resultant by-election—or maybe hoping for them so that they could then engineer a defeat on a confidence vote. Leaving it that way to call an election could mean that it would happen at the very worst of times: in the middle of a freezing winter, during school holidays, in a financial crisis or even at a time of national mourning, to say nothing of major international events or indeed the convenience of Her Majesty. Some of those questions are about the principle of a fixed-term Parliament, but they are far more likely to arise and be more acute with an over-lengthy five-year Parliament.

The question is particularly pertinent for a coalition. A coalition is new to the electorate and therefore needs a vote sooner on its performance than five years. Also, because its manifesto was never put to the electorate or endorsed at a general election, it seems right that it should not be run for a full five years. Although in general four years is right, it is even more acute either for a Government with a small majority or indeed for a new coalition that four years down the line rather than five is the right time to involve the electorate in whether they wish that Government to continue.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about the length of the period between elections in normal times. If it is agreed that five years will be written into legislation, over a period of 20 years the electorate will be denied an opportunity to go to the polls to decide what form the Government will take and which Government will be returned. We had an opportunity last week to hear the Minister on this matter. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, was good enough to talk about it. He said that the present system gave awesome power to the Prime Minister of the day. However, what seems to have happened in the room that was talked about in the story from the autobiography of Mr Laws is that awesome power was given to the people around that table. It strikes me that many of the people around that table, who may be very good at economics and other matters, were not experienced parliamentarians. If they had been experienced parliamentarians, they would have said what I am saying today: four years is far better than five.

I ask the Minister to consider four years for the sake of the House and how it operates. I know what he said last week, when we had a warm-up and were able to hear some of his thinking. That is good; we could then think about what he had to say and come back, as we have today. I think the Minister said that his case was that in the fifth year Members of Parliament decide that they want to be in their constituencies. That is not because they are lazy—far from it. They want to work on the hustings; they know an election is coming up and want to be in their constituency. The Minister’s case was that they would do that in the fourth year. However, they would not do that because the Government would not run out of legislation in the fourth year. Therefore, if Members of Parliament missed three-line Whips, it would be duly noted in their constituency. Constituents would say, “Why was he or she here on a Tuesday, missing a three-line Whip?”. That is an incentive to keep Members of Parliament here in the fourth year, rather than in the fifth.

I bolster the case about Governments running out of legislation in the fifth year. The House of Commons Library tells me that in 2009-10 Session, there was not one vote taken on the Floor of the House of Commons on a Thursday. They had topical debates on a Thursday. Some were on very important matters but they were debates. On Thursdays we turned the House of Commons into a debating society, which meant there was no record of whether anyone turned up to represent their constituents. I reiterate what I said the other week. Tam Dalyell, an excellent parliamentarian, told me as a young MP, “Michael, if they want you, tell them you will be available on a Saturday or a Friday night. Don’t take the sleeper up to Glasgow and then get back down for the vote. Tell them that your job is to be in the House of Commons”. However, the Executive of the House of Commons at that time were pleased to have topical debates with no votes so that everyone who wanted to could get away, which meant that more power was put into the hands of the Executive. That is contrary to what the Liberals have said on the Floor of the House of Commons and, indeed, here. They have said, “We don’t want the Executive to get more power”.

Last week the Minister said what fantastic power we were giving to the Prime Minister by enabling him or her to call an election on a date of their choosing, when the polls looked good. The coalition comprises two parties that fought like cats and dogs in the House of Commons—I had to hold their jackets at times—because their policies were so different. However, the leaders of those parties said: “We are getting together to sort out the financial problems of this nation; that’s why we are together, but here’s the wee deal—that we get a five-year Parliament”. There are people with more knowledge of political history than I but I put it to the Committee that Ted Heath might have had the power to go to the country that the Minister talks about, but it did not work for him. Ted Heath said: “It’s me or the miners”, but the country did not re-elect him. He did not serve his full term. Therefore, the great power that he had did not work in his favour; nor did it work in Harold Wilson’s favour in 1970. I remember hearing as a young canvasser that Labour would win again, and the polls all said that. Harold Wilson was perceived as the winner, but during the 1970 election word came through that he would lose, and he did. The same happened with Jim Callaghan. Had Jim Callaghan gone to the country before the great winter of discontent, perhaps he would have won—who knows? The Prime Minister may have awesome power but it has been shown that that power does not always work in his favour.

The noble and gallant Lord spoke about disgruntled Ministers. I suggest that there will be a stack of disgruntled former Ministers. I can hear them now saying, when they were appointed, “Tony said I am the only one who can do this job”. Then they go on to Sky TV—the lovely thing about Sky TV is that if you cannot sleep in the middle of the night, you go on to Sky TV—and the same Minister says, “What a wonderful Prime Minister we have”. I do not know whether it was reported that one Minister said: “I would jump under a bus for the Prime Minister”. I would not jump under a bus for anybody. I do not know whether it was a moving bus or a stationary bus but it shows how much that Minister loved the Prime Minister. Then there is a reshuffle because the Prime Minister has a difficulty; he has to get fresh blood in because the Back-Benchers are saying, “They’ve had their turn at being Ministers; we want to be Ministers now”.

I do not want to mention names but it has been reported that the gentleman who wrote the book might get back into government. I say good luck and three cheers to him. However, there are too many Ministers on the Front Bench so somebody must fall off the end. The logic of that gentleman getting back into government is that someone else will lose their job and become a disgruntled former Minister. The lovely thing about that is that the same people, when they lose their jobs, do not say any more that the Prime Minister is a great person. They sidle up to you in the tea room and say, “He’s a rotter. He’s a bounder”. That gave me an opportunity to say, “But you were not saying that about him two years ago”. The media then make mischief because they have a pool of individuals who are willing to criticise the Government.

That then leads me to consider the people who matter—the electorate. They turn on their televisions, as do the politicians, and they say, “What is going on here? They are all fighting like cats and dogs”. They then think of the old saying in the Bible that a house divided against itself will surely fall, and they say to themselves, “We elected these people to be unified. They promised us unity and now they are fighting with one another”. That will happen in the fifth year. For the sake of running the House properly, four years is far better than this fixed five years.