Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am aware of the popularity of the current Member for the Isle of Wight, and he will know better than I do that the number of MPs representing that area has changed quite dramatically through the ages. I believe that the Isle of Wight once had eight MPs. I understand that this proposal is controversial there, but equality of size as a general rule—with the two exceptions I mentioned—seems to us to be a cornerstone of the Bill.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, but even those who are on side in respect of what he is trying to achieve through equalisation of the size of parliamentary seats are somewhat concerned at the speed and perhaps the brutal simplicity of the approach. Will there be scope for judicial challenge of any of the individual decisions taken by the boundary commissions?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Member will know, anyone can seek judicial review in normal practice, but on the criteria given to the boundary commissions, it is worth stressing that they will retain their existing ability to refer to local links, geography, county boundaries and so on, but subject to a principle of equality. That is a simple—yes, it is simple—straightforward principle of equality that we are enshrining in the legislation.

By having more frequent boundary reviews—one every five years—constituencies will be kept more up to date, reflecting changes in where people live. In order to make that possible, we are changing the consultation process. Consultation is, of course, vital, but as leading academics concluded in a report published just last week, local inquiries have become “the playthings” of political parties and have had, in practice, little impact on the commissions’ final recommendations, so we will abolish local inquiries. Instead, we will triple the time that people have to make representations to the commissions to have their say—from one month to three months. Residents will have—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I recall that when that point was put to the Deputy Prime Minister in the debate on the Queen’s Speech and he was asked whether he accepted that there should be a pro rata reduction in the number of Ministers and aides, he refused to give any commitment at all.

Let me return to the issue of public inquiries. Back in 2003, when the present Prime Minister supported the system, he had an opportunity to have his case put before a local inquiry. Under the Bill, no such right will exist in the future. Instead, all that the public are offered is a longer period for written representations, which is no substitute whatever for a proper examination, including oral evidence, before a judicially qualified chairman.

The Deputy Prime Minister said in the House a few minutes ago that there was no evidence that such local inquiries had changed the original proposals from the Boundary Commission. Again, he is not woefully ill-briefed, because he has a fine set of officials, but he is woefully ill-informed. The Boundary Commission’s fifth report for 2007 reported that local public inquiries had led to change in the original recommendations in 64% —two thirds—of the cases where proposals had initially been made. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. That happens to be the case, and the source for that is the Boundary Commission.

[Mr David Davis]

I put exactly that point to the Deputy Prime Minister earlier. If we are not careful and the Bill goes ahead as it is currently drafted, instead of public inquiries, will we end up with a series of local judicial challenges on the basis of reflection of community interests?

[Mr Straw]

Yes, I agree.

Let me pick up on something that the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned parenthetically when he said that the timetable motion had been agreed by the usual channels. I am not responsible for negotiations with the usual channels, but I can tell the House that we are adopting the same approach to the programme motion that was always adopted by the Conservatives when they were in opposition. We do not believe that sufficient time has been allocated to this Bill, and we shall vote against the programme motion.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Deputy Prime Minister, when he opened this debate, presented this Bill as something designed to increase people’s respect for the political system that we work under. The people might respect us more if we admitted the real reasons for what we are doing. Of course party advantage is implicit in what we are talking about—with an electoral system, it would be surprising if it were not—and I am sure that the proposal has come about, in part, as a result of the political grievances of each component of the coalition Government. On the part of the Conservative party, the grievance is that it takes a 10-point lead over Labour to get a majority in the House. That seems a perfectly legitimate grievance. The Liberal Democrat party has a grievance that, as the long-term third party in this country, it does not get a share of power very often. Now is an exception.

So, there are understandable grievances, and there is nothing wrong in our political system with parties doing things that are to their advantage and in their own interest, but we must do such things with open eyes, and in a way that subordinates party interest to public interest, and that is where I have a problem with the Bill, because we must recognise that we are proposing to change a system that has worked extremely well for well over a century. Arguably, it has worked better in this country for our democracy than in any other country and for any other democracy in the world. We have avoided extremism and, in general, had good outcomes throughout that time.

We are going to replace that with the alternative vote. The Deputy Prime Minister quite rightly said that it was very difficult to predict the exact outcome of an alternative vote. We do not have to do our own calculations, however. The Blair Government asked Lord Jenkins to chair a commission on proportional representation, and one thing that he considered was the alternative vote. Interestingly, Lord Jenkins rejected it, and one of his grounds was that it was too anti-Conservative— Lord Jenkins, let alone anybody else, said that. More importantly, he rejected it also on the ground that it was not just not more proportional than first past the post; in many cases it was actually less proportional—more disproportional—than our current system.

In that report, the most telling thing of all was a minority report by Lord Alexander, one of the great legal brains of his day, who took a case study of an alternative vote in a constituency with the Tories on about 40% of the vote and Labour and the Lib Dems neck and neck on 30%, plus or minus one percentage point. He showed very clearly and simply that what decided who won was who came third. The result had nothing to do with the primary preferences of constituents; it was the accident of who came third. That is the system that we are talking about putting in place.

[Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Davis]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not. I have only six minutes, unfortunately.

This House has many characters with very interesting differences, and the other thing about AV is that it acts to create a coalition of antagonists, picking the least unpopular rather than the most effective Member. I think of AV as an anti-Carswell system. It is a pity that my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) is not in the Chamber in order for me to tell him that. AV disadvantages bold and unconventional Members, those the House should treasure, and that is an important side effect.

We are measuring that system against a first-past-the-post system that has been very effective throughout history. It has been decisive, radically and ruthlessly so when it needed to be. When it brought in the Attlee Government after the second world war and the Thatcher Government in 1979, it recognised times of crisis and responded to them. At other times of crisis, when it decided that none of the major parties had all the answers, it created a coalition, and that is what it has done this time. That is what it did in the 1930s and the 1970s. That system actually works well and it has done so without creating the gap between the electorate and the ruling elite that we have seen in countries with proportional systems. The system has delivered outcomes that are in the tenor of the times and that have given an answer to the problems of the times.

We should be very careful about replacing that system. As has been said, this is a major constitutional change, greater than many that we have considered down the decades. It should be a choice for the people—I agree with that—and it should be an informed and deliberate choice. The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chairman of the Select Committee, is no longer in the Chamber. He complained because insufficient thought and analysis went into the assessment before it was presented to the people. Let us compare these proposals with the Scottish referendum, which followed a constitutional conference, a White Paper and manifesto commitments.

What we need to make sure is that we inform the people and give them enough notice and enough knowledge to make the decision properly, and to have it resolved clearly. What I fear is that instead we shall have circumstances where perhaps only 30% of the population will turn out, so only 15% or 16% will vote for the system, and on that basis, we shall have the biggest change in our constitutional history for half a century.

Treatment of Detainees

David Davis Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. All the published guidance in the world cannot deal with all the incredibly difficult circumstances in which our brave intelligence officers find themselves in different parts of the world. The guidance is there as guidance. It is as clear as it can be, but it is right that there are circumstances in which decisions are referred to Ministers. In the end, Ministers are accountable in Parliament and are able to make those decisions. The right hon. Gentleman’s point is a good one: if that happens, it may need to happen very speedily, and we will put in place arrangements so that that can happen.

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

I commend the Prime Minister on coming to such a fast decision on this important issue and I support what he had to say today, including his commendation of our intelligence services. Will he reinforce what I think underpinned much of what he said, which was that this tribunal will be able to follow the evidence wherever it goes; that it will not only have access to people and papers, but to in camera court records that relate to this; and, when it comes to conclusions, it will be the decision of the tribunal, and the tribunal alone, as to what is published in the national interest?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for those points and for his support on this issue. It was important to reach a speedy conclusion, because this has been hanging over us for too long. We are not dealing with issues that we have inherited from 2007, 2008 and 2009. These go back some way, to after 9/11, and it is important that we grip them. He asked whether the inquiry would be able to look at court records, and I am sure that the answer to that is yes. As for what will be made public, it will be for Sir Peter to draw up his report. He can follow the evidence exactly where it leads, he can look at secret documents and all the intelligence information, but the report will be to me—and in the end, as Prime Minister and Minister for the intelligence services, I have to make a decision about what should be put in the public domain. It is my intention to publish the report—that is what I want to do—but I have to have regard for what is in the national interest and in our security interest, and that is something that I will have to decide.

Political and Constitutional Reform

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The key question is whether the package of reform increases the power of Parliament to hold the Executive to account. That is the fundamental issue of principle which members of the Labour party, when they were in favour of political reform, used to understand. This package of reform unambiguously puts this Parliament back in the driving seat.

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

I commend the Deputy Prime Minister for changing his mind on the 55% proposal, but may I ask him to think again about the timing of the referendum? The reason that the Electoral Commission recommends against holding referendums on the same day as elections is not that people cannot decide on more than one thing at a time, but that it leads to differential turnouts, which means that the subsequent referendum is unrepresentative. Would that not be unfortunate on such an important issue?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The Electoral Commission, which the right hon. Gentleman cited, said just last week:

“There are benefits of holding elections and referendums on the same day—for example to encourage turnout, but there are risks associated with combination too.”

What we must do is act in order to minimise those risks and increase the benefit. The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There were real problems in the elections in 2007 which, as analysed in the Gould report, raised concerns about combining elections at the same time, but let us remember that as the Gould report demonstrated clearly, the complexity at that time arose from the coincidence of elections to Holyrood and very complex and lengthy ballot papers for the local elections in Scotland. In the proposed referendum, there will be a very simple question to which there is a simple yes or no answer. I think people will understand that that is best held at the same time as they go to vote on other matters, rather than asking them to return to the ballot box on another occasion, at great additional expense to the taxpayer.

Constitution and Home Affairs

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I should like to make progress. I have said as much as I can and wish to say at this stage on that issue.

The power of recall is just one of a range of reforms intended to shift power directly to the British people.

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

The Deputy Prime Minister knows that I approve of and support the power of recall, but I have talked to him about the scope for individual injustice in a scheme that is triggered by something that is not judicial. In his remarks about the power of recall, is he telling us that the triggering procedure, which would currently be the Privileges Committee, would become more quasi-judicial than it is now?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I can confirm that I believe it would be wrong for a Committee that, as constituted previously, is composed only of other politicians, to act as judge and jury for something as important as the trigger that would lead to a by-election and a Member losing their seat. Exactly how we could provide a fairer form of due process so that MPs are not unfairly ensnared in the mechanism of recall is the subject of reflection now. If the right hon. Gentleman or any other Member has any ideas about how we should do this, I should be grateful to hear from them.

--- Later in debate ---

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

With only seven minutes, I must be brief on the issues I want to raise.

The Deputy Prime Minister will not be surprised that I am a strong supporter of much of his great repeal Bill which, after all, is the natural conclusion of the great battle over freedom that has taken place in the past five years. I hope that that Bill represents a step change not only in the law, but in attitudes in the Government, so that they will not think that in order to catch the guilty, we must punish the innocent, or that to prevent terrorism and crime, we must treat the whole country as suspects. If that step change happens, it will augur well for the future.

It is a paradox that the new politics is ushering in a return to some ancient rights. The reform of the libel laws re-establishes freedom of speech; the reform of freedom of information re-establishes open government; and reform of the DNA database re-establishes the presumption of innocence. In addition, the prevention of unnecessary intercepts, along with measures against the retention of data and the proposals on CCTV, re-establishes privacy. All those are worth while, and by themselves would justify the existence of the coalition if nothing else did.

Of the three pillars of our national traditions—liberty, justice and democracy—those proposals support the first two, so I offer two cheers for the great repeal Bill, not three. The reason for two rather than three cheers is that some things are missing from it. There is nothing on those great blots on our judicial landscape, by which I mean, first, the use of secret trials in which suspects—usually, but not always, terrorist suspects—are tried without knowing the allegations or the evidence against them, which is completely inimical to British law. That was introduced by the previous Government and I hope that this Government will remove it.

There is nothing yet on control orders—another measure inimical to British traditions, using house arrest and effective internal exile for suspects rather than for the convicted. There is still nothing yet—I hope we will see it and I hope that the Home Secretary will respond to the point when she concludes the debate—on reduction of the 28-day period for which prisoners can be held without charge. We fought over 42 and 90 days, but 28 is still too many, and I hope that the Government will take that on board. I trust that these are deferrals, not oversights, by the Government.

Another issue for the Government to think about in connection with the great repeal Bill is the need to revisit the Digital Economy Act 2010. It was passed in the final stages of the previous Parliament, and it was an error for us to allow it through, as we did in the wash-up.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Davis]

I think I have only a minute left, so I ask the hon. Gentleman please to be quick.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Like the right hon. Gentleman, I voted against the Digital Economy Bill on Third Reading, before Dissolution. Given that the Liberal Democrats also voted against that Bill being given a Third Reading and given that the Secretary of State now responsible for that measure is indeed a Liberal Democrat—the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable)—would it not be particularly appropriate for the Liberal Democrats now to act on this issue in the way that both the right hon. Gentleman and I would like?

[Mr Davis]

The hon. Gentleman restates my wish for the Government to take that issue on board. I hope that they do, and that they do so in the great repeal Bill as part of a process that the Deputy Prime Minister quite rightly laid out—a process in which the Government were listening for proposals on things to be repealed.

The trouble with the Queen’s Speech from my point of view rather coincides, I am afraid, with some of the comments made by the shadow Lord Chancellor, particularly when he quoted from an article that I wrote for the newspapers about the 55% proposal. Indeed, I have problems with three elements of the proposed Bill. One element is the alternative vote, which is no surprise; one is the issue of recall, which I believe the Deputy Prime Minister has gone some way to meeting. However, the 55% requirement is undoubtedly a significant constitutional change. We cannot sidestep that fact. It was not in a manifesto, so the proposal is, by definition, likely to be ill thought through and to require greater consideration by the House.

The issue has been represented as one that is a necessity for fixed-term Parliaments. I am in favour of fixed-term Parliaments and I have absolutely no problem with the Prime Minister giving up his right to call an election at any point in time. He can do that and I am happy that he has done so; it is entirely proper. By contrast, altering the circumstances under which Parliament can dismiss a failing Government is a massive constitutional change, which goes to the heart of Parliament’s ability to hold Government to account. One of the leitmotifs of this Government, I hope, will be giving Parliament more powers, not fewer. Such a major change would normally involve prior consultation, a prior manifesto commitment, a White Paper and ideally both the acquiescence of the Opposition and a referendum. That is the sort of pattern that should precede a major change in the constitution.

Let us think about what the proposal entails and whether we can give it the sort of scrutiny and reform that it needs. For a start, it has not been very clearly explained and it may have changed to some extent in the course of negotiations, but it is basically in two component parts. One part—and I do not think that the shadow Lord Chancellor understood this—is that a vote of confidence will still exist at 50% plus one. What usually happens now under such circumstances is that the royal prerogative is exercised to judge whether to have a Dissolution thereafter or to allow a reforming of some other Government. That is the current situation. What is being proposed, I think, is replacing that system with a Scottish-type situation under which if, 28 days after a vote of confidence, no Government can be formed, Dissolution will then automatically occur. That is my understanding of the proposal as it now stands, and it is based on what happens in the Scottish Parliament. However, I have to say—and the Scottish nats will have to forgive me—that the Scottish Parliament does not represent an independent state. For the Scottish First Minister not to exist, or to be a lame duck or retired and not replaced for 28 days, would be a problem for Scotland, but it would not be a disaster internationally.

The nature of confidence votes is that they happen only four times a century. That is the first point. Secondly, confidence votes almost always happen under circumstances of crisis—wars, depressions, breakdowns in society. Under such circumstances, for us not to have an effective Prime Minister for 28 days seems untenable. Let me say to the Deputy Prime Minister that I hope those on the Front Bench will take that point on board, because as it stands, what is proposed is not a zombie Government, but at least a zombified country for 28 days, and possibly at a difficult time.

What is the other part—the 55%—for? It is for dissolving the House without the embarrassment of a vote of confidence and for the Executive, effectively, to use their power—their whipping capability—to dissolve the House. That does not seem to be a proper thing for us to do as a Government. It is not the sort of approach that I would expect from the new politics, frankly. That is why I have some sympathy for the suspicious view that says, “Why 55% and not 66%?”, when the Government have 56 or 57% of the vote. That approach diminishes the proposals and it diminishes the Bills that the Government are bringing before the House. In truth, I would like to see my Government—because that is how I see them: as very much representing my views—putting that aside and recognising that it is something that the House will not take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I am not able to give the right hon. Gentleman a timetable at the moment. Indeed, I took a decision that we would agree to an adjournment of the judicial review that was due to take place towards the end of May. I was asked whether I would do that and received further representations from Mr McKinnon’s legal representatives. I am waiting for those further representations to be received.

[Mr David Davis]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her response to my question. I raised another issue—28-day detention, which is coming up for annual review very shortly. There are stories in the press this evening that she will review that limit as well. In the light of the Government’s commitment to telling the House before they tell the press, can she tell us anything about that?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to respond to that point. As he has just said, the decision is up for renewal towards the end of July. No decision has been taken at the moment, but I can assure him that Parliament will be informed of any decision that is taken. That question partly leads on to the freedom Bill. Protecting the country from terrorist attacks is, of course, of primary concern, but striking the right balance between safety and liberty is something that the previous Administration got horribly wrong. We have seen a significant erosion of individual freedoms, and power has been diverted from the citizen to the state. That is why we are legislating to roll back the state, to reduce the amount of Government interference and repeal unnecessary laws, but our commitment to protecting the public will not be compromised. The freedom Bill will help us to balance an individual’s right to privacy and liberty against the collective safety and security of the entire country.

At the heart of our reforms is the desire to build a stronger society with responsibility and fairness at its heart. We will enable people to take back responsibility for themselves and their families. We are determined to value the British people, to invite them into the debate and to listen to them—something that was sorely lacking under the previous Administration. The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) talked of linking the Government and the people—a worthy aim indeed, but it is a pity that the last Labour Government did not do that. For 13 years, they took powers to the centre and away from people and communities.