Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (Money) (No. 2)
Charles Walker Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). My Broxbourne constituents are horrified at the cost of this referendum, which some commentators have said could be as high as £250 million. I dare to say that this money would be far better spent on employing doctors, nurses, teachers and soldiers.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Charles Walker Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Harper
I will be happy to take interventions when I have made a little more progress. I think that the House would expect me to do that in a time-limited debate.
We have also amended the Bill to provide that the boundary commissions must publish all the responses to their initial consultation and allow an additional period during which people will be able to make further representations or counter-representations related to the arguments put forward by others. This is the second area where we thought that some good points had been made in the debate, and we acted in response to an amendment tabled by Lord Lipsey on the Opposition Benches. We think that this amendment, in combination with the public hearing proposals, will deliver a consultation process that represents a real improvement not only on the one that was in the Bill originally, but on that in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986.
We have made other significant amendments to part 2. We have tabled amendments explicitly to empower the boundary commissions to use wards as the building blocks for constituencies—the other place got very exercised about that—and to give the commissions discretion to take account of existing parliamentary boundaries. The amendments respond to concerns about the degree of explicit guidance given to the commissions on what they could take into account. We have accepted an amendment expressly enabling the Boundary Commission for England to take account of the boundaries of the City of London.
In response to an amendment from Lord Williamson, a Cross Bencher, we will require that a review is established after implementation of the new constituencies at the next election to consider the impact of the reduction in the number of seats in this place to 600. There was extensive debate about that in the other place, where we heard all about the fears, largely of those who had been Members of Parliament, that slightly fewer—7.6% fewer—Members of Parliament in this place may place constraints on their ability to do the job. We thought that Lord Williamson’s suggestion of a review in the next Parliament to consider the effect of that reduction to see whether there were some lessons that could be learned was very sensible, and we were happy to accept it.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems strange to many Members across the House that we are reducing this House to 600 Members while increasing the size of the unelected House of Lords by 150 peers?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend makes what would be a good point if it were not for the coalition Government’s clear commitment to bring forward a draft Bill in the near future—early this year—to reform the other place. If we were not doing that, he would have a solid case, but given that we are proposing to do that, his case falls away and there is just a timing difference.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. There are about 11 minutes left, so brief speeches would be welcome.
Mr Walker
I will be extremely brief, because I come here naked, without a formal speech to give. All I would say in response to the two Front-Bench speeches that we have heard is that I think that the Lords did an absolutely magnificent job. The Bill has been rushed through this House in haste, and the Lords did exactly what they are meant to do, which is to act as a reforming and revising House. We will ignore some of their recommendations this evening at our peril.
The Prime Minister is not one for taking revenge against those who disagree with him, or perhaps delay his ambitions. I therefore disagreed with the shadow Minister when he quoted Sky News and said that the Prime Minister was gearing up great armies to swoop down on the House of Lords and duff them up a bit. However, I am concerned about the vague promises made by those on my side of the House about setting up a commission to review whether reducing the number of Members of Parliament to 600 is a good idea. This really should have been done by now, as part of the work of a far wider cross-party commission, bringing together all parts of the House to look at the proposals, because we are talking about fundamental constitutional reform. If such reform is to be successful, it will need to carry the support not just of Members of Parliament but of our constituents.
Our constituents will be concerned about what they are seeing, because in essence we propose to reduce the size of the House of Commons by roughly 10%. We do not propose to reduce the number of Ministers, and we are increasing the number of peers by 150. I am sure that some proposal or other will be made to address the question of the House of Lords—there might be a proposal for an elected upper House—but that could be kicked into the long grass and become a third-term aspiration for this coalition Government.
Mr Harper
I will be brief in my intervention, given the time limit. As my hon. Friend has said that he thought that the House of Lords did a good job, he should know that the proposal for a review after the next election was made by Lord Williamson, a Cross Bencher. It is a proposal that we agree with, and it had broad appeal in the House of Lords, not just for those who take a party Whip, but for Cross Benchers. I hope that on that basis my hon. Friend will welcome the proposal, which the Government accepted, and which we propose to accept in this House.
Mr Walker
I would say to the Minister that we should have shown more foresight in this House, and addressed those issues here before passing them over to the House of Lords.
I conclude by saying that I support any movement and organisation in this House that is difficult, and makes some attempt to resist the will of the Executive.
Ian Lucas
Of all the appalling aspects of this piece of legislation, for me the abolition of local public inquiries is quite the worst. No party ever proposed to abolish them before the general election. If the parties now in government had a particular concern about public inquiries, I would have expected them to express it in manifesto commitments on which the electorate could have given their verdict in the general election. However, it is only since the general election that the issue has been raised.
When the idea was raised, I was anxious to obtain the views of local people in my constituency. I highlighted to community councils—the equivalent of parish councils in my constituency—the fact that the right to deliver oral representations to a public inquiry was about to be abolished. My letter to those community councils was considered at the same time as a report from a boundary commission relating to local councils. Representations had been made by councillors of all political parties objecting to boundary commission proposals for local councils. The community councils were most concerned about the local council provisions. They then saw my letter, and became aware that the right to make representations about a parliamentary boundary change was to be taken away from them.
In Wales, public inquiries will continue to be held on matters relating to local councils and Assembly seats, but they will be removed for matters relating to parliamentary seats. The only reason why they are being removed is the electoral deal between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, who want to remove those public inquiries because they need to get the changes through by the next general election. That is why this huge constitutional Bill was not delivered in draft; it is also why many of us on both the Opposition and the Government Benches had our right to make speeches on important issues removed through the use of the guillotine when these matters were considered before Christmas.
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
Charles Walker Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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—
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.
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.
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.
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.
Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
Charles Walker Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I am a sinner and I embrace sin. In the previous Parliament, I used the expenses system almost to its fullest. So I am no angel and I accept that I have to take my share of responsibility for what went before—but that is then and this is now. I fully appreciate that IPSA was set an impossible task by this Chamber in July 2009. We legislated in haste and are now repenting at leisure. The Chancellor said last week that “I told you so” is not a policy, but in July 2009 I did say that we were going to regret the haste with which we were introducing the plans for IPSA and we are now regretting them bitterly. The “problem” we have in this place—it is part of its richness and is not necessarily a problem—is that all 650 individuals do their jobs differently, and trying to shoehorn them into a one-size-fits-all solution was always going to end in tears.
I fully appreciate and acknowledge the public anger at what went before, because it was unforgivable. However, we should recall that by July/August 2009 the Fees Office had got its act together and for that final nine months things improved dramatically. They improved at an annual cost to the taxpayer of £2 million a year. That is a significant sum, but it is not as significant as the £6.5 million a year that IPSA is costing the taxpayer. This must not be about taking revenge on Members of Parliament; it must be about value for money. In six months, IPSA will publish its first year’s figures and they may well show that the cost to this country of Members of Parliament has reduced. However, we should treat those figures with great caution, because if the cost to this country has gone down because Members of Parliament are not claiming legitimate expenses or are funding them out of their own pockets, that is no victory at all.
Over the past decade we have talked about improving the diversity of representation in this place—diversity of race, creed and colour—and we have moved forward immensely. However, there is no diversity if everyone here ends up being rich—wealthy; having family money or independent means. Of course, the make-up of this Chamber is not going to change overnight—it is not going to change at the next general election—but over time it will change. This place will become the preserve of the better-off, whether they sit on the Government Benches or the Opposition Benches. There are many things to recommend the US political model, but one thing that does not recommend it is the fact that most people who sit there have significant private means.
Let us talk further about diversity, because we now have a great diversity of ages here. We have people in their 20s and one person in their 80s. That is healthy. People of all age groups need to be represented in this place, but how can we have a diverse system when some Members—perhaps in their late 60s or 70s—are expected to travel an hour and a half to two hours home every night? We deposit them on a platform somewhere in the far-flung parts of the home counties at midnight. That is not going to encourage diversity. It will not encourage women to come to this place either, if we expect them to go home at midnight. They have not been out for a night on the town; they have been working on behalf of their constituents.
I did a quick and dirty survey of Conservative Members of Parliament, to which I received 173 responses. I want to share the following five, anonymous, responses with the House:
“I’m too scared to claim”;
“IPSA shows no interest or desire to keep families together”;
“Regular nights spent sleeping on the office floor”;
“IPSA is anti-family and favours richer Members”;
and:
“People won’t claim and only wealthy people will come here as MPs”.
Is that really what we want a 21st-century democracy in this country to look like? Do we really want Members of Parliament sleeping on their floors? Do we really want young parents separated from their children for huge amounts of time? Do we really want people to be paying legitimate expenses out of their own pockets, or the pockets of their partners or parents? That is simply a ridiculous place to be.
I have to say that I was disappointed in The Times newspaper yesterday. I have a great amount of time for The Times. I read it avidly and I thought that its reporting of the expenses scandal was fair and balanced. However, when it says in a headline: “MPs are already flouting new rules on expenses”, it really does worsen the situation, deteriorating it even further. The article continued:
“The list of rejected claims…reveals how MPs were caught submitting duplicate claims, failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to back up their demands and, in dozens of cases, flouted the new rules. One MP was refused £338 for a shredder”.
That was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have dealt with cases that involved murder, rape and child abuse, and my God, we had better be shredding that stuff! As much as I respect The Times as a newspaper, if it wants to be responsible for heralding in the age of the rich, privileged Member of Parliament, what I have quoted is just the sort of stuff that will bring that about.
I want to say one more thing—this is not an attack on the Whips Office, but a statement of fact. Members have heard me talk repeatedly in this place about the creeping power of the Executive, and I will say this: if we worsen the financial situation of Back Benchers, we will inevitably increase the power of the Executive, because the attraction of becoming a Minister will be even greater. It will not just be about the ministerial car or the red box; it will start being about the money as well.
If the expenses scandal taught us anything, it was that what our constituents want most is independent-minded Members of Parliament who do what they say and mean what they say. I have grave concerns about IPSA and what it is doing to this place. Things must change because if they do not we, our democracy and our constituents will all be worse off.
Mr Harper
I can answer only for how Ministers and I deal with parliamentary questions. I endeavour to answer mine promptly and within the time limits, and I would have thought that others should do so too. However, thankfully, the Government are not responsible for IPSA’s ability to answer questions.
Mr Harper
I am grateful for that intervention. I shall now try to make some progress, as I want to leave sufficient time for other hon. Members who wish to get in.
I said that the Prime Minister would be listening closely to this debate. In July, during Prime Minister’s questions, he said that:
“what is necessary is a properly transparent system, a system with proper rules and limits which the public would have confidence in, but what we do not need is an overly bureaucratic and very costly system. I think all those in the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority need to get a grip of what they are doing, and get a grip of it very fast.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 946.]
That is what all Members have said today. They want IPSA’s system to be transparent, straightforward, not bureaucratic and not costly. IPSA should get on with that.
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
Charles Walker Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
My children once asked me, “What does a heffalump look like?” I said, “You’ll know one when you see one.” Has that not been the case with confidence motions throughout history? The House has known one when it has seen one, and we are in danger of over-complicating the process in the Bill.
Mark Durkan
I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, and that was why I indicated my support for earlier amendments that would have narrowed the ambiguity and reduced the possibility of political and procedural chicanery, with which the Bill is riddled.
Mark Durkan
I will acknowledge these interventions no further.
To return to the matter at hand, let us be clear that the Bill’s provisions are open to all sorts of contests, questions and controversies. As I have said, I believe that the Minister was wrong to say that the House will know in all circumstances when something is a vote of confidence. If he wanted to make that incontrovertibly so, he would need to provide either in Standing Orders or in the Bill for a formal indication by the Speaker that a certificate could be issued prior to the period set out in the Bill, which starts 14 days after a motion. That, in turn, would bring the Speaker into areas of political controversy and intervention. Amendment 6 is clearly aimed at ensuring that those difficulties do not make the issuing of a certificate, or possibly the failure to issue one, a matter of controversy that can be brought to the courts.
In discussing previous amendments, Members alluded to affairs currently in Oireachtas Éireann and in the Dail. Those affairs may be relevant this week, because an opposition party there has indicated that it might take to the courts the question whether, under the constitution, the agreement that the Irish Government have entered into has to be subject to a vote of the Dail. Let us not rule out circumstances in which a party here, possibly a party of Opposition, could feel that the Speaker had wrongly declined to issue a certificate, or that the Government were using all sorts of procedural chicanery to prevent certificates being issued and to reset the clock. That party might then feel obliged to take the matter to court if it felt that it faced dead ends and chicanery in Parliament. That is exactly the situation that was threatened in Dublin this week given what the Irish Labour party justice spokesman said. Let us not join the Minister in completely dismissing all such possibilities.
I do not want to move from Dublin to Northern Ireland affairs, but I have some experience of what happens in practice. I was involved in negotiating and implementing the Good Friday agreement, including as a Minister and Deputy First Minister. Ministers told this House that procedures would follow their own course and that political matters would not end up in the courts, but then I found that my election as Deputy First Minister was taken to court—when I was jointly elected with David Trimble—because all sorts of rules were bent and twisted and the clock was reset by Secretaries of State and others.
The Northern Ireland Act 1998 set a clear six-week period, but Secretaries of State discovered that if they suspended things for 24 hours, there would be a new six-week period. Whenever there is a facility to contrive a completely new situation and dispose of a statutory deadline, it is used—whenever Ministers are told that in case of emergency they can smash the glass, they do so. Completely contrary to the assurances and explanations given to the House when we debated the 1998 Act, a number of Secretaries of State found themselves doing that. In addition, Assembly Members redesignated to pass particular votes, even though they said that they would not, and so on.
In the context of the Bill, people have said that a Government would never put themselves in the embarrassing position of activating a vote of no confidence in themselves or cutting corners, ignoring rules or resetting clocks so that they can bypass dates and deadlines, but the Northern Ireland experience shows that that is not so. The exigencies of the moment, and the demands for stability and good governance, can be used as circumstantial excuses. Let us not pretend otherwise. If we are trying to provide for fixed-term Parliaments with clear, fixed and guaranteed arrangements, we must go further than the Bill does. It leaves too much power in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Executive when there has been a motion of no confidence, and in respect of their influence over the decision of whether a motion is one of no confidence or otherwise.
I therefore ask the Minister to acknowledge that there are shortcomings in the Bill. Some of the amendments have their own shortcomings, but they do not diminish the serious problems with the Bill. If he will not accept amendments 6 and 23, will he agree to work in another place and in the House at another time to make his own amendments, so that the Bill does not create those difficulties and controversies?
Under the Bill, the Speaker could be the subject of controversy. What if there are differences between the Speaker and Deputy Speakers on the question whether to indicate in advance that a motion is certifiable? More importantly, as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said, I believe that such matters could find themselves before a court, not only because somebody might want to contest the fact or content of a certificate, but more importantly because people might want to contest the failure to issue a certificate or the fairly questionable proceedings in advance of it. We do not want the Speaker of the House of Commons to be caught in the same position as Scottish football referees. They have been accused of taking and changing decisions in relation to subsequent arguments and events. Let us protect the office of the Speaker and this House.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Charles Walker Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman might shake his head and dismiss the idea of people making written representations, but they will not end up in the bin. They are an effective means by which people can make their views heard, and I am sure he will take up that opportunity if he wishes to.
Combined with our other reforms—fixed-term Parliaments, a new power of recall, and reform of the other place—the Bill will help us close the gap between people and politics, ensuring that our institutions meet expectations and are fit for a modern 21st-century democracy.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I do not doubt the Deputy Prime Minister’s sincerity, but he used to be very keen on reducing the number of Ministers in this place. Why is he not so keen on that measure now?
The Deputy Prime Minister
There may well be a case for looking at the number of Ministers when the size of the House of Commons is reduced, but that is not happening now. It would happen only in the next Parliament. We would need to keep it under constant review, and—dare I say it?—future Governments might wish to act upon that idea. I do not dispute at all the principle that as the Commons is reduced in size, so should the number of Ministers be reduced.
I understand that some Members continue to have specific concerns about the detail of the Bill. That was clear, for example, during the thorough debate on the date of the referendum. I know that Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in particular continue to worry about the implications of combining different polls on 5 May, but I believe that our decision is right and that voters are able to distinguish between elections to local government or devolved institutions and a straightforward yes or no question on a completely different issue. However, the Government remain alive to the concerns and will continue to work with the Electoral Commission and administrators across the UK to help ensure that combined elections run smoothly.
Mr Charles Walker
I shall be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I could have just about brought myself to vote for the Bill, but for the fact that once again it plays into the hands of the Executive. Once again, we see the Executive seizing more powers at the expense of Parliament. The House will be reduced to 600 Members of Parliament, while the Executive will remain as large as it is now.
I really did think that we had learned our lesson in the last Parliament. I really thought that, after 100 years of giving powers away, we might do things differently in this Parliament. I now wonder what on earth is the point of being a Member of Parliament in this place. Only three hours ago, we were informed that prisoners would be given the vote. We would not have a say in it; it would be done over our heads.
Tonight, my constituents have every right to ask, “What is the point of Charles Walker? What is the point of having elected representatives?” This is an appalling state of affairs. Once again, we are increasing the powers of the Executive at the cost of Parliament, and we deserve absolutely no sympathy. Whatever befalls us over the next four years as Back Benchers, we will have brought it on ourselves. However, I say to new parliamentary colleagues in particular that it is very difficult to vote against this Bill, because their political virility will be measured by whether or not they become a Minister, and if they do not become a Minister they do not get the extra money, the car or the red box, and when they leave this place as a humble Back Bencher there will not be people queuing up to offer them jobs because companies want only politicians who have had the red box to serve on their boards. I therefore say to any Back Bencher who votes against this Bill tonight, “You are extremely brave, and if you do vote against the Bill you, like me, won’t have a career going forward, but you will have my undying admiration.”
Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The facts show that those who rebel against their own party are more likely to become junior Ministers than those who do not.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I thank the hon. Member for that clarification, but it was not a point of order. Have you finished Mr Walker?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Many Members want to speak, and I want to call as many of them as possible. If Members are as brief as Mr Walker was, I am sure we will hear from a lot of colleagues.
Prisoners’ Right to Vote
Charles Walker Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Harper
In respect of what the hon. Lady said in the first part of her question, she is leaping ahead. Ministers are considering how to deal with the judgment in the Hirst case. I should also explain that one of the problems with the previous Government’s inaction is that if they had implemented the judgment based on the decision in the Hirst case, we might well have been in a stronger position. As she will know—I am sure she follows this issue closely—case law has moved on. Ministers are considering these issues and, as I have said, when we have taken the decisions we will come and announce them to the House.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
We in this place have a duty to represent the people who elect us and, almost to a man and woman, they will be saying, “No, no, no.” What is the point of having a sovereign Parliament if we have to bend down to the European Court on this? Surely we can help the Minister by having a vote and sending a strong message that we do not want this, and then he can go and negotiate it away.
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend will know that we do have a sovereign Parliament but that about 60 years ago it signed up to the European convention on human rights and effectively made that part of our law and our legal obligations. The Government are following the judgment of the Court in implementing our legal obligations—nothing more and nothing less.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Charles Walker Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Temporary Chair
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. That is not a point of order for the Chair, but I am sure that she is pleased to have put the record straight.
New Clause 7
Variation in limit of number of holders of Ministerial offices
‘(1) The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 is amended as follows.
(2) For section 2(1) substitute—
“(1) The number of holders of offices specified in Schedule 2 to this Act (in this section referred to as Ministerial offices) entitled to sit and vote in the House of Commons at any one time, whether paid or unpaid, must not exceed 95 if the number of constituencies in the United Kingdom is 650.”.
(3) After section 2(1) insert—
“(1A) If the number of constituencies in the United Kingdom decreases below 650, the limit on the number of holders of Ministerial offices entitled to sit and vote in the House of Commons referred to in section 2(1) must be decreased by at least a proportionate amount.”.
(4) In subsection (2), after “subsection (1)”, insert “or subsection (1A)”.’.—(Mr Charles Walker.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 7 would amend the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which currently sets the maximum number of Ministers allowed in this place at 95. As you know, Mr Streeter, part of this Bill, if passed, will bring about a reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600. My new clause is very modest in its scope. All I am seeking to do is to amend the 1975 Act to ensure that the ceiling for the number of Ministers is pushed down from 95 to 87, which directly reflects the percentage reduction in the number of Members of Parliament.
My new clause is very moderate. Many colleagues urged me to go further and to make a real assault on the patronage of the Executive, but I thought that that would be unreasonable and unreasonably ambitious. There might be voices of self-interest, largely residing on the Front Bench, who argue that we have the right amount of Ministers. They might even argue that we need more Ministers. I hope that I do not hear those arguments tonight.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Might there not be even more Back Benchers interested in increasing the number from 95 to about 195?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman makes his usual sparky intervention.
Rafts of leading academics and political commentators have recognised for a long time that there are far too many Ministers in this place. Sir John Major, the former Prime Minister, has argued that we could easily do as well with a reduction of 25% to 30%. Lord Turnbull, the former Cabinet Secretary, told the Select Committee on Public Administration earlier this year that the number of Ministers could be cut by 50%. Professor Anthony King has argued the same, as has Lord Norton of Louth.
Of course, those academics and political commentators are in good company. Our own Deputy Prime Minister argued in January that the number of Ministers should be reduced.
Fiona Mactaggart
Has the hon. Gentleman spoken more recently to the Deputy Prime Minister, because it is my impression that he is not likely to say today the things he said in January?
Mr Walker
The Deputy Prime Minister is a man of great integrity. I recognise that this is his Bill, and once he has heard the force of my argument he will rush here and demand a rethink from his Front Benchers.
Speaking at the Institute for Government in January, the Deputy Prime Minister called for the House of Commons to be reduced to 500 and for the number of Ministers across both Houses to be cut to 73. The Government’s demands are much more moderate. They are talking about reducing the size of the House to 600, but if we reduce it to 600, following the Deputy Prime Minister’s logic, we should reduce the number of Ministers by 15. That would tally with his mathematics, but, as I said, my new clause is modest. I am not calling for a reduction in the number of Ministers by 15. I know that many Members are demanding that I do that, but I shall not hear it. I am simply demanding a reduction in the number of Ministers by eight.
Many people here have argued privately in the corridors that there is no link between the size of the House of Commons and the number of Ministers. That is total nonsense. We know that as far back as the Bill of Rights of 1689 this House expressed concerns about the Crown having a presence here in the form of Ministers. The 1701 Act of Settlement tried extremely hard to remove Ministers from this place, because the politicians of that time wondered how one could serve the Crown as well as one’s constituents. Unfortunately, that never saw the light of day because the Executive got their way in 1706. As recently as 1926, if someone became a Minister of the Crown, he was required, in between general election periods, to resign his seat so that his constituents could decide whether their Member of Parliament could serve two masters—the interests of the constituents and the interests of the Crown.
That is where I am coming from. I am arguing for a modest reduction in the number of Ministers. We have had enormous ministerial inflation since 1983. Margaret Thatcher—we all remember her, that great lady—had 81 Ministers to run this country in 1983. We now require 95. Is the world so much more complex? I say to those who argue that it is that since 1983 we have privatised a large number of previously Government-owned industries and we have allowed Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have their own devolved Assemblies. The number of Ministers has still risen inexorably.
I do not want to try your patience, Mr Streeter, by straying off new clause 7 and talking about inflation in the number of Parliamentary Private Secretaries, but we are now seeing 50 PPSs adding to an already burgeoning payroll. Although these people are not even paid, they are called the payroll vote. As far back as the 1960s, one could be a PPS and vote against the Government without danger of losing that role, but that is not the case today. The civil service code of conduct says that a PPS is required always to support their Government.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I am mystified as to what the role of a PPS has to do with the civil service code.
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to correct me. It is the ministerial code, which is similar to the civil service code.
Those on the Front Bench might well argue that they have made progress in reducing the cost of the ministerial payroll. They will argue—it is a bit of a red herring—that on taking the seals of office, Ministers took a 5% pay cut. In reality, they did not take a pay cut, because they went from being in opposition to being in government and took a 25% to 50% pay rise. It just was not as large a pay rise as it could have been.
The savings to the ministerial payroll are about £500,000, not an insignificant sum. Lord Turnbull said to the Public Administration Committee that the average cost of maintaining a Minister, with private offices, cars and private secretaries, is £500,000 per Minister. By reducing the ministerial payroll by eight in 2015, we will save the taxpayer a further £4 million. While we are at it, we might like to consider the 10 unpaid Ministers we have across the two Houses, because if we got rid of them we could save another £5 million. However, that is an argument for another time and another place.
Mr Streeter, you know better than anyone that we live in an age of austerity. Things are changing. We are dismissing senior permanent secretaries from across the civil service. We are removing chief executives of councils and their directors. We are attacking senior and middle management across the country, yet there is one group of senior management that is completely immune to these cuts and that is the ministerial corps. Yes, we are all in it together, but not quite if one is a Minister. I do not think that any good argument could be presented from those on the Front Bench for not reducing the ministerial head count.
I am an enormous fan of the coalition and the Prime Minister, and I think that the coalition is what the country needs at this time. Both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have talked about new politics, a new way of doing things and a new optimism. New clause 7 is the litmus test for new politics, because I do not understand how we can have new politics and oppose reducing the Government’s patronage at the same time. I hope that Front Benchers can respond to that point.
To colleagues who are, perhaps, being leaned on by the Whips, I say that this is our chance to take ownership of new politics, which cannot be driven by Front Benchers and the Executive because the Executive are all about taking and retaining power and extending the tentacles of patronage even further. We as Back Benchers will take ownership of new politics tonight; we will do the heavy lifting for the Executive. By going into the Lobby and supporting new clause 7, we will be able to look our constituents in the eye when we go for reselection after the boundary review or the general election and say, “I was different.” When they challenge us with that worn cliché, “You’re just the same as the rest of them. You’re only in it for yourself,” we can say, “You are wrong. I was one of those Members of Parliament in 2010 who voted to reduce the number of Ministers.”
I have spoken for too long. In conclusion, new clause 7 is the very essence of new politics. The House and my colleagues have the chance to do the right thing tonight and I hope that they take that chance, because they will be respected for it if they do.
Mr Heath
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting the Committee straight on that.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) supported the new clause. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) made the important point that the oversupply of Ministers was not best addressed by their being put in the House of Lords. I entirely agree. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex expressed a contrary view, saying that he rather liked having Ministers in the House of Lords, but I am not sure that I agree with him.
Mr Charles Walker
I do not like the idea of lots of Ministers being in the House of Lords, but the fact is that there are currently eight unpaid Ministers there. If the hon. Gentleman does not want them to be there, why on earth are the Government putting them there?
Mr Heath
I will let the hon. Gentleman into a secret: I am not the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister who makes appointments. I am simply saying that I do not think we would improve the present position by putting more Ministers in the House of Lords. In the last Parliament, members of the Cabinet—Secretaries of State in charge of Departments—were in the House of Lords, and we had no way of holding them to account. That was an affront to this elected House, and I am pleased that we have put it right.
Let me explain why I cannot support the new clause, although I have a degree of sympathy with the view of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).
Mr Heath
Without rehearsing arguments from other parts of the Bill—we must not do that—I can say that the interesting thing is that the proposal to reduce the number of Members and equalise constituencies seeks to make some Members who represent very many fewer constituents than others have the same work load as those of us who represent larger constituencies; we comprise about a third of the House.
Mr Charles Walker
The Deputy Leader of the House questioned whether it is wise to put an arithmetical limit on the number of Ministers, but an arithmetical limit of 95 is already in place. Is he suggesting that we remove that and just have a free-for-all in this place?
Mr Heath
No, I am not. I am suggesting that a slightly more complicated relationship is involved than perhaps the simple solution suggests; I have already mentioned one of the factors, which is that this solution does not take into account the position of the House of Lords and the reform of that House in which we are engaged.
Mr Heath
No.
Let me go on to the next point, which is the timing of what is being suggested. This is not the hoary old chestnut that used to be described by the former Member for Cambridge, Mr David Howarth, as the doctrine of unripe time—everything was always for the best possible purposes, but the time was never ripe for it to happen. I am not saying that. I am simply saying that various elements of our proposals for reform of the constitutional arrangements and for the politics of this country are moving forward in various pieces of legislation and at various times. By the end of this Parliament, they will be in place, but this is not the right time for this measure.
Let me try to make some progress. The Government are committed—as the fairer Members who have contributed to the debate have already recognised—to passing power from the Executive to Parliament. The hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Backbench Business Committee created by this Government, will, I hope, recognise that that is the case—
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We cannot have two people on their feet at the same time. The Deputy Leader of the House should give way to Mr Walker.
Mr Heath
I apologise; I thought that the hon. Gentleman was. I apologise to him and to the House. I hope that it will not prove to be a resigning matter that I mistook him for a member of the Backbench Business Committee. Knowing him to be a fair-minded man I know that he will attest to the fact that this House has already moved the control of much more parliamentary time to Back-Bench Members through the Committee. We have also seen the election of Select Committee Members and Chairs, to which we have already drawn attention in this debate.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also become the first Prime Minister in history to give up the power to call a general election at the time of his choosing. I think it is clear that the Government are not looking to extend their own influence, but believe on principle that power should be dispersed. Indeed, we will bring forward legislation very soon to disperse more power to local communities and local authorities, enabling them to do their job more effectively.
I have difficulty in accepting that there is a need to put this new clause into this Bill at this time. It is now October of 2010—[Hon. Members: “Well done!”] It is good to know that Opposition Members are engaged in serious constitutional debate. There are four and a half years until the provisions of this Bill will take effect—[Hon. Members: “No.”] There are four and a half years until the provisions of the Bill on the boundary reviews and the reduction in the size of this House take effect. It does not result in an immediate change to the size of this House. We are legislating at speed to allow sufficient time for boundary reviews to be conducted nationally on the basis of a smaller House, but when we have time to reflect, we should use that time.
Mr Heath
Yes, it would, but my point is that new clause 7 does not perfectly encapsulate the purpose that the hon. Gentleman, the Government and I might share of making government fit for purpose in that new Parliament. Given that we do not have to pass this new clause as part of the Bill, it seems sensible to take our time, listen to representations and people’s views, and see whether we can come up with something better.
We have heard very clearly that the issue at stake is the size of the Government’s payroll vote. The proposition we have heard is that the Bill will give the Executive undue numerical dominance in the House and that we must therefore legislate now to reduce the number of Ministers here. It is a numerical fact that if the Bill becomes law, and unless we legislate to the contrary at some stage, the Government elected in 2015 will be entitled to make Ministers out of a higher proportion of the Members of the House. They will not be compelled to do so, but they will be entitled to, and recent Governments have tended to appoint as many Ministers as they can, or very close to that number. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I have acknowledged before that this issue deserves consideration, and it would not take a great detective to find the number of occasions on which I have said precisely that. On the face of it, it is not desirable that the payroll vote should be expanded as a proportion of the House’s membership. We have said that we will consider how to address this issue and we will do so.
We are told that Governments legislate too much, and the new clause concerns an issue that might be better resolved without legislation. Governments are capable of reducing the number of Ministers without being compelled to do so through legislation. More importantly, perhaps, the payroll vote is often taken to include Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who are not covered by current legislation and who would not be covered by the new clause. It is only by self-denying ordinance that those numbers are limited. Governments have clearly been capable of self-restraint, and that self-restraint would still be necessary if the new clause were accepted. As I have said, under the previous Government we had not only Ministers and PPSs, but tsars, envoys, special representatives, Regional Ministers and assistants to Regional Ministers. A lot of them have been removed but they were all elements of patronage within the House. If it is patronage we are seeking to address, then we have to address all those appointments, not just the ministerial ranks.
Let me repeat a point that was made earlier. Legislation would not cover the number of Opposition Front Benchers, which is also relevant if the concern is that there are too few independent voices from the Back Benches. I accept the principle of legislation on ministerial numbers as a back-stop, but surely the number of Ministers must be a function of need, which is not necessarily related to the number of MPs. When previous statutes increased the number of Ministers in the House, they were unrelated to any changes in the number of MPs: there has never been a clear link or a set ratio. At the moment, there can be one Minister for every 6.842 Members of Parliament or thereabouts. The new clause would enshrine that ratio in law in perpetuity. If it were to become law, the Government could appoint as Ministers no more than 87.692307 Members of the Chamber. That would be the relationship. I merely make the point that I do not believe that a simple arithmetic relationship is necessarily the right one to address.
We should not forget the purpose of having a ministerial presence in the House: we need sufficient Ministers to attend to the business in the House, to make statements, to answer questions, to introduce Bills and to contribute to debates. The House rightly expects the highest standards of accountability from its Ministers and we strive to meet those standards. Indeed, it is often complained that Ministers are too rarely seen when the House discusses issues for which they do not have direct responsibility. That reflects the reality that we demand a lot of our Ministers in this country, both to govern and to legislate.
The question of how many Ministers should sit in the House of Commons is bound up with other questions—for example, considering the number of Ministers in the House of Lords. As the Committee is aware, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is chairing a Committee on reform of the House of Lords. The Committee comprises Members from all three major political parties, as well as from both Houses—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Rhondda asks, “What’s that got to do with it?” as though reform of the House of Lords—the thing for which we have been arguing for 100 years—has nothing to do with the constitutional arrangements of this country.
The cross-party Committee is discussing all issues pertinent to reform, including size and composition, and whether the second Chamber is wholly or mainly elected. It will also discuss the position of Ministers in the reformed Second Chamber. Currently, there are far fewer Ministers in the House of Lords than in the Commons, but we will need to think carefully about how the distribution of Ministers may be affected by any changes to the size of the second Chamber, or by the introduction of elected Members.
The Committee is charged with producing a draft Bill early next year, which will then be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government hope that will be carried out by a Joint Committee of both Houses. It is possible that arguments may then be made for either a greater or smaller ministerial presence in the second Chamber. We should wait to hear the views of the Committee.
There is also an argument that the limit on Ministers in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 is arcane in other respects. For example, it makes no provision for Ministers who might fill the role on a part-time basis or a job share. It is expressed in terms of numbers of individuals rather than full-time equivalents. That should perhaps be part of any consideration.
For all those reasons, although I welcome the debate, the Government are not minded to accept the new clause. We shall reflect on the arguments made today and set out plans once we have achieved some consensus on the composition of the second Chamber, including the number of Ministers there. If it still appears—[Interruption.] I think it is important for the House to hear this. If it still appears necessary, there will be plenty of time at that stage to legislate before 2015. I urge the hon. Member for Broxbourne to withdraw the new clause, on the basis that we shall very carefully consider the arguments he has made.
Mr Walker
I say to new colleagues who were not here in 2009 that it was the most awful experience. We were led up the garden path by a powerful Executive and had our legs cut from underneath us. We vowed that we would never, ever let that happen again. We vowed that we would take control of this place back from the Executive.
I wish I was being braver in my new clause. All I am asking is that when the House of Commons reduces by a mere 50, we reduce the number of Ministers by a mere eight, yet in this age of new politics those on the Front Bench cannot even give us that. Colleagues, this is the night when the new politics will be born, or it will die. Please support new clause 7 tonight, to give new politics some meaning, because it will be driven by Back Benchers—it can never be driven from the Front Bench.
I call for a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Charles Walker Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Brady
I have always found the hon. Gentleman to be commendably consistent. I hoped that that would be evidenced this evening, should he be called upon to enter the Division Lobby on these matters. My optimism is not bounded even by the shadow Minister’s words of caution, because my hon. Friend the Minister also appears to endorse the sentiments that I have expressed.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
He is a good man, although he is a bit wayward on occasions.
Natascha Engel
I shall indeed, and I thank my hon. Friend for urging me to push the amendment to a vote. I shall seek to catch your eye later, Mr Gale, to divide the Committee.
Mr Charles Walker
The hon. Lady will know that the Liberal Democrat Benches are full of independent-minded people and I am sure that some of them will demonstrate an independence of mind and support her in the Division Lobby.
Natascha Engel
I hope so too, and I hope to see the hon. Gentleman there as well. I would be delighted if as many people as possible joined us in the Aye Lobby—I am just getting used to being on the wrong side.
The United Nations convention on the rights of the child, to which the UK is a signatory, is very straightforward: it grants every child and young person the right to express their views “freely” and to have those views “given due weight” in “all matters affecting” them. That goes to the crux of the matter. Our 16-year-olds will be excluded by what we do here tonight unless the amendment is accepted. Their voices will not be given due weight regarding something that will fundamentally affect their democratic rights two years after the referendum. Anybody who is aged 16 on the day of the referendum will be 18 at the general election and eligible to vote. We need to be careful about contravening people’s human rights.
Chris Bryant
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) on providing us with the amendment to debate this evening, and on the manner in which she presented her case. It showed that one can make a forceful case with a considerable degree of humour, and I think that we all enjoyed it. Indeed, it was one of the most enjoyable speeches that I have heard in the House for many a long year.
I was going to say that I was once a 16-year-old, but I am not entirely convinced that I ever really was; I think that I am going back to my childhood now. Several hon. Members referred to the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds, and I know that hon. Members in the Liberal Democrat party are trying to find reasons why they do not have to vote against the Whip this evening, but I honestly say to them, “You’re either in favour of votes at 16 and 17 or you’re not, and if you are you should be voting in favour of votes at 16 and 17 in the next election, which may be held next May.”
Otherwise, it seems to me that the Liberal Democrats really are taking to heart the words of Homer Simpson, when he said:
“Weaselling out of things is important to learn. It’s what separates us from the animals—except the weasels.”
I know that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) is not a weasel, and I know that none of the honourable people currently sitting on the Liberal Democrat Benches is either, so I hope that they will stick with their manifesto commitment, which was to vote in favour of votes at 16 and 17. The most recent vote on the matter, held before the general election, was a free vote for Labour Members, and the Labour party will have a free vote again this evening.
I happen to support votes at 16 and 17, simply because we ask young people to do many things in modern society, and they are aged in many ways. We now expect them to take on significant levels of debt, and to consider doing so before they go to university, and I honestly believe that if they can make decisions about whether they can parent, about whether they have children, I think that they should also be able to decide who governs the country. That is not the precise proposal in the amendment before us, because it relates merely to the referendum, but I think that general election votes should also apply to that age group.
I am afraid that I find the amendment that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) tabled quite disturbing and unpleasant.
Chris Bryant
I am not over-egging it. Remarkably few people have migrated to my constituency of the Rhondda over the past 80 years, except from Ireland and England, so this is not an issue about who is and is not able to vote in my constituency. However, I rather like the fact that some elements of our law on citizenship are slightly fudged. I like the fact that we still emphasise the bonds of the Commonwealth sufficiently to be able to say that if an Australian works in this country in a bar as part of their gap year, is resident here, pays their taxes and is working, by virtue of their citizenship of Australia they are allowed to vote.
Let us refer to the Republic of Cyprus. Many north London Conservative MPs would reckon that it was not without the Cypriot vote in the general election that they were elected. In addition, if we were to disfranchise the large number of Greek Cypriots in north London and, for that matter, south Wales, we would be saying to them, “Please don’t engage in the British political system,” and doing so at a time when their engagement with the British political system enables us to engage better with the problem in Cyprus, which is still a divided island, with a divided capital city and all the problems about which this Committee knows.
Chris Bryant
That is quite interesting, because rather bizarrely I spent a lot of the general election in Spain, trying to help British people get home during the ash cloud problem. Indeed, it was as difficult to get to Spain as it was to get back, so it was a slightly complex mission. I am conscious that about 1 million British people live in Spain, and that about 800,000 live in France, and many exercise a right to vote because they have a second home either in the UK, Spain or wherever. However, when they no longer participate in British society, it is difficult to see why, after 15 years, they should continue to have the right to vote as an overseas voter. In actual fact, the number who use their vote is infinitesimal. That is partly because of the difficulty of voting by post. I suppose that arrangements could be made for voting in embassies, consulates-general and so on around the country, but I am not sure that it is worth the effort. After 15 years, there is a good argument to say that if someone has no direct investment in the future of the United Kingdom, then it does not apply.
Mr Charles Walker
I am trying to follow the Minister’s argument. Is he saying that rugby league players from Papua New Guinea playing in the north of England should have a right to vote in a referendum on the future voting system in the United Kingdom?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman is sitting next to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West—a man who just described himself as an eternal optimist. They are both so optimistic that they are still referring to me as a Minister, which is a delight. Of course, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) knows perfectly well that that is not the argument I am making; I know that because he did that little shrivel-up of his nose that he sometimes does when he is about to make a mischievous contribution in debate.
The basis of my argument is that the bonds of the Commonwealth are important, and I have given a couple of instances of that. We have significant numbers of people from these various communities in the UK. Many of them have been resident for some time, pay taxes and contribute to British political life, and I would like them to be able to remain in the same situation. The situation is not broken, and so, to use an old Conservative principle, I do not see the need to fix it. Particularly in relation to the Republic of Ireland, it would be a step completely in the wrong direction to try to unpick the relationship that we have managed to maintain over the past few years.
Another issue that has been touched on only slightly relates to the overseas territories. We should consider, not directly in relation to this referendum, but certainly in relation to the future, how overseas territories are represented in the context of the British Government. There is an degree to which we still decide matters for the overseas territories. For instance, in recent weeks the Government have decided to overturn the decision on borrowing in the Cayman Islands and allowed the Cayman Islands to remain as a tax haven. I believe that that is entirely a mistake, and that the finances of Cayman are unsustainable. It is therefore important that we find some means of ensuring that the overseas territories have some form of representation.
I want to ask the Minister a couple of other questions about why the Government have introduced the clause precisely as it is. I presume that we will not have a clause stand part debate, so I will mention these points now, if that is all right, Ms Primarolo. I do not understand why peers should be allowed to vote in a referendum on elections to the House of Commons. That seems slightly odd, because all the other provisions relate to those who are able to vote in elections to the House of Commons. Perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us. In particular—this may be down to my personal stupidity and inability to read legislation—[Interruption.] Undoubtedly it is, yes. I see that the hon. Member for Worthing West (Peter Bottomley) has swapped sides and decided to join the ranks of the Labour party: he is very welcome.
I asked the Minister about clause 2(2) earlier, so by now he might have had some inspiration from the officials. No, I see that he is not going to get any inspiration from them because they are all shaking their heads furiously. The clause makes provision for peers whose only right to vote will be by virtue of being able to do so through the City of London—for instance, as an alderman—and therefore not by virtue of their residence. Precisely how many people does he think that that catches?
Can the Minister tell us about the position of the bishops? As he will know, some bishops arrive in the House of Lords automatically and some arrive on a sort of episcopal escalator that takes them up there once they are among the longest-standing bishops of the Church of England, as long as they are diocesan, not suffragan or area bishops. What happens to bishops once they are no longer taking their ex officio seat? Will they be allowed to vote? What provisions does he think should be made for the future?
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I should like to speak to amendment 332, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel). I am grateful to her for doing so, because this is about something that I passionately believe in. Like other Members, I too was 16 once, so I should like to join that club.
This is a unique and momentous moment, as it could open the door to votes for 16-year-olds in all elections. I would welcome that. We are in danger of marginalising young people, and we have to give considerable thought to which way we vote on this proposal, because we do not want to send out the wrong message to them. When I look around at young people, I see that they are growing up faster, certainly in my area. We have a more diverse economy and young people have different career prospects: they expect to change jobs several times, and they are more interested in the future than they ever have been. A more uncertain future gives them more interest in the changing job situation. In my constituency, 15, 16 and 17-year-olds want to be involved in that debate. We see it in the schools and colleges where all the young people are involved in debating—more so than I can ever remember in my lifetime, and perhaps before that on the basis of what I hear from other people.
Mr Charles Walker
I do not mean to disparage 16 and 17-year-olds, but most of them want to be on the Xbox, not putting the X in the box. Since the hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament, how many 16 and 17-year-olds have written to him demanding the franchise at 16?
Graham Jones
That is a very cynical and jaundiced view to take towards 16 and 17-year-olds. The hon. Gentleman will not get many votes from 16 and 17-year-olds in his constituency, and he is probably in desperate need of some election training. However, I will leave that to his constituency: if he is going to lose it to 16 and 17-year-olds, I am quite happy about that.
Young people in general want to be involved in politics and take more interest in it. With issues such as climate change, politics has jumped a generational gap to 15, 16 and 17-year-olds, who are very interested in that because it is their planet that is being polluted. It is not just about climate change or jobs, but a series of issues that people of an increasingly young age seem to be gravitating towards. For example, there are big issues of teenage pregnancy. Decisions are being made about them in their formative adult years, and they want to be involved.
Graham Jones
I enjoyed that intervention. It is good to hear that young people are joining trade unions; Labour Members certainly welcome that. The TV debates encourage us to extend the franchise—I think that we all agree that young people in our constituencies were energised by them. The medium and the mode meant that young people could see politics in a different light, and there was an increase in interest and participation. I went around the polling stations in Hyndburn when I was elected, and many more young people were in the polling booths. I think that that contributed to the higher turnout at the election.
Let me extend the argument about extending the franchise, because I believe that it should apply to all elections. We have a by-election in Baxenden on 18 November, and our candidate, if I can plug him, David Hartley, was 18 only days before nomination. He cannot suddenly have become politically aware; he has built up to that. We should encourage young people into politics, and it is good that a young person has come forward. We must be clear that to be politically aware at 18 requires a build-up of knowledge, and 16 and 17-year-olds should participate.
Although the amendment is about the AV referendum, the principle is clearly broad. It is a watershed moment because if we give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote for the referendum, it opens up the argument for the future. Let us consider tuition fees, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned. That assists the argument for extending the franchise. Parliament is discussing the differential charging of students. We could go back to the old debate about taxation without representation, but if we intend to subject young people to differential charging based on background, not ability to pay, we should extend the franchise to them. Today could be the day we start extending it.
The major argument against extending the franchise is lack of knowledge and experience among young people, but that is ageist and not based on young people’s cognitive processes.
Mr Charles Walker
I know that the hon. Gentleman is making a heartfelt plea, and I quite like children—I have three of my own. Why cannot we leave them alone to let them get on with being children? They are not obsessed with getting the franchise. Sixteen and 17-year-olds want to chase girls, drink beer and have a good time. Let us stop accelerating the ageing process.
Graham Jones
Given that the hon. Gentleman is now encouraging his constituents aged 17 and under to vote against the Conservative party, I hope that he has more children.
It is claimed that young people do not have the experience and knowledge to vote. When my grandmother was 95, she had serious Alzheimer’s, yet she still held the right to vote. Nearly all young people are far more informed than my grandma was in her later years, but we never thought about taking the vote from her. Saying that young people are not experienced or knowledgeable enough is not a strong enough argument. It does not reflect real life or how people experience it. Indeed, I believe that 16 and 17-year-olds are often in a better position to make an informed judgment. There is no principled or consistent argument that justifies denying the vote to young people.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Charles Walker Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Minister is being very generous, but bearing in mind that there will not be a general election until 2015, surely there is not that much of a rush to get this measure through the House.
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend is right that the coalition Government are strong and that there will not be an election until 7 May 2015, as set out in the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. The Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear, however, that we want the referendum to take place next year in order to make progress, and we also need to kick off the boundary review, ensuring that it reports in good time before the next election. That will allow parties across the House to select their candidates. We have secured a balance between moving at a reasonable pace, while also allowing adequate time for proper parliamentary debate. I think that we have done so.
Mr Harper
We made a commitment in the coalition agreement to have the referendum, and the Government believe that we should arrange to have it at an early opportunity, putting the question to the electors so that they can decide what voting system they want to use in the next election. That is the decision that the Government have made, and that is the view with which I will ask the Committee to agree later today. The House has already agreed with it in principle.