Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Brady of Altrincham Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I do think this is a vitally important issue, and that is why the Defence Secretary will be making a statement right after Prime Minister’s questions. These are extremely difficult decisions, and our first thoughts should be with all those who are affected. Frankly, I was surprised that the Leader of the Opposition did not choose to raise this vitally important issue.

Let us be clear about what we need to do here. We want our Royal Navy to have the best and most modern ships and the best technology, and that means we will go on building warships on the Clyde. We will be announcing three new offshore patrol vessels, keeping that yard busy rather than paying it to remain idle, as the previous Government proposed. In Portsmouth, yes, there will be job reductions, but there are many more people involved in ship servicing than in shipbuilding, so the work force will go from 12,000 to 11,000. But no one should be in any doubt of two things. Under this Government, we will have aircraft carriers, Type 45 destroyers, the new frigates, and the hunter-killer submarines; and there is something else they should know: if there was an independent Scotland we would not have any warships at all.

[Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

Q3. As we approach Remembrance Sunday and the centenary of the first world war, will the Prime Minister join me in commending the work of the Victoria Cross Trust? Will he consider how the Government might assist the trust in its important task of restoring and maintaining the graves of some of the nation’s bravest soldiers, sailors and aircrew?

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his support for the Victoria Cross Trust and the hard work that he has done. I welcome any initiative that commemorates those who have given their lives in the defence of our country. Many Victoria Cross holders’ graves fall under the protection of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. We will continue to work with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the Victoria Cross Trust to do everything possible to ensure that those people are remembered properly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Brady of Altrincham Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I did not leave any debt burden. We will concentrate on the policies of the Government. Nothing further requires to be said, so we shall move on. I call Mr Graham Brady.

[Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

Q6. Whatever the long-term benefits of the high-speed rail project, it is already causing serious worry for tens of thousands of home owners along the route. Will my right hon. Friend give urgent attention and consideration to the possibility of introducing a property bond, to remove that blight?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about this issue. It is right that he stands up for his constituents, and other MPs have discussed this issue with me. I think we should remain committed to HS2, because it will connect our cities and communities and bring many benefits, particularly to the north of England, as it is built out, but we should look at the compensation schemes available, and we are consulting and listening to the idea of the property bond.

Tributes to Baroness Thatcher

Lord Brady of Altrincham Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

Thank you for your advice, Mr Speaker. We have had some warm and dignified tributes from both sides of the House, led admirably by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I hope that we can now return to tributes in that spirit.

Briefly, I want to pay tribute in three different ways. As chairman of the 1922 committee, I want to pay tribute on behalf of Conservative Back Benchers present and past, although I note from the number of colleagues who are standing to make their own contributions that they may well speak for themselves in due course. Like many others, I want to pay a personal tribute. I also want to pay tribute especially as a northern Conservative MP, who now represents the constituency in which I grew up in the 1980s, perhaps answering and responding to the points that were made by the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher).

On behalf of the 1922 committee, I pay tribute to a leader and Prime Minister who achieved so much—three stunning election victories; turning around a moribund economy; ending decades of decline. She restored our national pride—from being the sick man of Europe, only good at making jokes about ourselves, which I remember as a boy,

I pay tribute to Margaret Thatcher for the inspirational leadership that she gave to the Conservative party; for inspiring Conservative supporters around the country; and most of all, for inspiring millions of people who had never before realised that they were Conservatives. Lady Thatcher’s strength, conviction, patriotism and clarity won her the respect of friends and fair-minded critics alike. Perhaps most remarkable was her popularity not only in this country but overseas, and the lasting legacy of freedom, democracy and prosperity, which we have heard about from many colleagues, that she leaves as a leader who helped to win the cold war and who inspired the people of eastern Europe to fight for their own freedom. Her legacy in this country and beyond will always be remembered with pride by our party.

As with so many hon. Members of my age, my tribute is also intensely personal. Growing up under Margaret Thatcher’s governance, it was impossible to be agnostic about politics. Her message was one of opportunity. Whatever your background, you could progress by merit and hard work. Had I not taken that message to heart, I, like so many other Conservative Members—and perhaps, from a different perspective, like quite a few Opposition Members—would not be here in Parliament today.

The last part of my brief tribute to Lady Thatcher is that of a northern Member of Parliament, and it is to address a myth that is in danger of taking hold. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) addressed some other myths that have been spread recently. It is true that the restructuring of our economy in the early 1980s hit parts of the north hard, because a concentration of heavy industry and mining had become uncompetitive and uneconomic, but many metropolitan journalists fall into peddling an easy fallacy, suggesting that the north was uniformly hostile to the message of Lady Thatcher—we were not. Many Labour Members will recall that the seats they now represent returned Conservative Members who supported Margaret Thatcher’s strong defence, modernisation of the economy, determination to extend opportunity, and spreading of wealth and home ownership to their constituents. Many of those seats across the north returned Labour Members only after Tony Blair embraced the free market, low-tax message of Margaret Thatcher.

We are here to remember a truly remarkable lady, who influenced all our lives, transformed our country and helped to bring freedom to others, and who most of all was unwavering in doing what she believed to be right. We should honour her memory.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Lord Brady of Altrincham Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

I am delighted to follow the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I share much of his analysis but arrive at the opposite conclusion.

The Deputy Prime Minister builds his case on three broad themes. First, there is his claim about the manifesto commitments. It is clear, however, that the Conservative manifesto contained no commitment to legislate—the Prime Minister famously described it as a third-term issue. Regardless, however, I would urge my hon. Friends to think carefully about their responsibilities as Members of this House. We are not delegates sent here to nod through whatever our parties ask, but representatives sent here to exercise our judgment in the public interest.

I would also like to reflect on the case for a referendum. If it were true, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, that all the major parties promised the Bill at the general election, then contrary to the assertions of the Ministers, the public were presented with no choice at the general election, so the case for a referendum on such major constitutional change is compelling.

[Alison Seabeck]

The hon. Gentleman is giving a thoughtful speech, as have other Members. If it is possible to have a referendum in a local authority—for instance, on something to do with council tax—surely it is absolutely right, on an issue as significant as this, that the British public should be offered the same choice.

[Mr Brady]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The case is compelling. Ministers really cannot have it both ways.

Much of what has been said about the Bill, however, concerns not party commitments but calculations of party advantage. We spend too much time here pursuing party advantage. To do so in changing our constitution would be not just wrong but contemptible.

Let me turn to the other parts of the Deputy Prime Minister’s case—the points of principle on which I hope the House will judge any proposal to effect a massive change in our constitutional arrangements. These are whether reform is needed and the argument that there is an absolute principle that those who legislate for the people should be chosen by the people. There has been an effort to paint opposition to the Bill as reactionary opposition to any change. Nothing could be further from the truth. Few on either side of this House or in the other House would dispute the need for reform. The Lords is too big and it needs a route to retirement. It also needs a means of removing those found guilty of serious crimes. All this, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) said, could be enacted with little dissent here or in the other place. However, desirable as reforming the Lords may be, I would contend that reforming the Lords without reforming this House would be to miss the point.

The public are not stupid: they know where power is located in our Parliament. They know that it is in this House and not the other. People certainly dislike politicians who break promises or who seem interested more in seeking or holding on to office than in serving the public good, but this is seen as a failing in the House of Commons far more than in the House of Lords. People notice that this House is poor at holding the Government to account. They see that we make only a desultory effort at scrutinising legislation—although I trust that this Bill will be an exception. People see the damaging effects of patronage—against which Lord Ashdown railed in the weekend press—but they know that patronage is a greater impediment to the freedom of this House than it is to that of the Lords. We are agreed that the House of Lords needs reforming, but reforming the Lords while flunking the far more important task of strengthening the Commons would be profoundly mistaken.

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

The hon. Gentleman will know that the coalition agreement is clear that we need to work to reform the effectiveness of this place, but is he clear that he appears to be proposing that we should end up with a second legislative Chamber that is slightly altered, but all of whose Members are appointed? Is that really justifiable in 2012?

[Mr Brady]

The right hon. Gentleman should be patient.

Let me turn to the most important pillar of the Deputy Prime Minister’s case: that those who legislate for the people should be chosen by the people. Many of the opponents of the Bill, on both sides of the House, reject that. They rightly point to the expertise of the upper House. They highlight the obvious truth that an elected or part-elected upper House would be more inclined to challenge the primacy of the House of Commons. I accept both assertions, but unlike many of my hon. Friends, I would support an elected upper House in spite of them. However, that is not what the Bill delivers. We do not have time today to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the United States constitution. There can certainly be gridlock between the Houses in the United States, but the legislation it produces is at least as effective as ours, and Congress is certainly far better able to hold the Executive to account than we are. However, is the Bill before us today one that would excite Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Paine? Is it a great clarion call for government of the people, by the people? It is not.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Brady]

No, I cannot give way again.

Let us look at the reality of the Bill and some of the reasons why it should be rejected by any true advocate of reform. Even if the Bill were enacted unamended and even if all the electoral cycles it envisages were allowed to take place and the reformed House foreshadowed by the Bill were implemented in full, we would have a bizarre and opaque arrangement—a House of indeterminate size, with an unknown number of Members appointed as Ministers by prime ministerial patronage; an appointments commission for the unelected Members responsible for vetting appointees for propriety, but not if they were appointed as Ministers; and a number of bishops, as has already been said.

Instead of a simple, transparent democratic process, the Bill proposes an absurdly complex hybrid assembly: elections by not one but two different systems of proportional representation; and party lists to help to maintain the central powers of the political parties over who will sit in the newly constituted Chamber. Far from the high principle of an elected Chamber, we have a ridiculous fudge, justified by the Deputy Prime Minister as a gradual move towards a wholly elected Senate, although he, like the Prime Minister on previous occasions, has suggested with a nod and a wink that the second and third cycles may never happen, and that that will be open to this House or indeed to the public in a referendum to decide.

As an advocate both of reforming the Lords and of introducing more democracy to our institutions, I shall oppose this appalling Bill because if those are its aims, I believe it will fail utterly to achieve them. The Bill fails to address the real problem in our democracy—a Commons that is so greatly dominated by the Government that it fails to perform its core functions of holding Ministers to account and of scrutinising legislation effectively. I urge the House to vote against a Bill that is complex where it should be simple, that preserves patronage instead of providing real democracy, and that yet again allows this House to avoid confronting the truth about its own shortcomings.

Backbench Business Committee

Lord Brady of Altrincham Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

It may be convenient for hon. Members if I remind them, before I call the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), that the Backbench Business Committee has recommended that the first debate should last no more than 20 minutes in total.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Until the Procedure Committee introduces a change in the Standing Orders, unfortunately, we are unable to make proper mini-statements, so I invite hon. Members to intervene on me and, hopefully, this will take us no longer than 20 minutes, so that the important business that follows can take place.

I want to mark the occasion of the Backbench Business Committee’s finishing its first session and launching the end-of-term report, part of which is designed to feed into the Procedure Committee’s investigation into how the Backbench Business Committee has operated over the past year and a half to two years. It is important to give hon. Members the opportunity to comment or give further suggestions about the Committee’s operation.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Brady of Altrincham Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[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 Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

Surely new clause 7 would also come into effect in four and a half years, at exactly the same time as the other aspects that the Minister has mentioned.

[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.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Brady of Altrincham Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

Entitlement to vote in the referendum

[Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 59, page 2, line 9, after ‘constituency’, insert

‘with the exception of citizens of Commonwealth countries or, subject to sub-paragraph (c) below, of the Republic of Ireland.’.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 332, page 2, line 19, at end insert ‘, and

(c) the person who, on that date, are aged 16 0r 17 and would, but for their age, be eligible for registration as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency.’.

Amendment 60, page 2, line 19, at end insert—

‘; and

(c) citizens of the Republic of Ireland who are ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland and who have chosen Irish citizenship under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.’.

Amendment 61, page 2, line 19, at end insert—

‘; and

(d) British citizens living outside the United Kingdom and not currently entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency.

(1A) The Minister shall, within one month of the day on which this Act is passed, by Order provide for a system of prior registration of those entitled to vote in the referendum under subsection (1)(d) above, and for mechanisms by which their votes can be cast.’.

Amendment 156, page 2, line 19, at end insert ‘; and

(c) British subjects of Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies who have individually expressed a wish to participate in United Kingdom Parliamentary elections.’.

Amendment 157, page 2, line 19, at end insert—

‘(1A) The Minister must, within one month of the day on which this Act is passed, by Order made by statutory instrument provide for a system of prior registration of those entitled to vote in the referendum under subsection (1)(d) above, and for mechanisms by which their votes can be cast.’.

Clause 2 stand part.

[Mr Brady]

It is a pleasure to rise to speak briefly to amendments 59, 60 and 61, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. We frequently make the mistake in this House of legislating in haste and repenting at leisure, but that is an even greater danger when we are engaged in legislation that can change the whole constitution of our country and that is what these amendments seek to address. I fear that in the Bill as it stands, we risk putting the cart before the horse, and I want to reorder those in the appropriate way.

In a nutshell, the import of my amendments would be that, first, only British citizens should be able to vote in the referendum and, secondly, that British citizens should be able to vote wherever they may be in the world. That would necessitate a number of changes, because my hon. Friend the Minister is proposing simply to take the franchise that we currently use for general elections and bolt it on to the referendum legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Will my hon. Friend explain what rules would apply to a British citizen—a British subject, indeed—in, say, Gibraltar or the Falklands?

[Mr Brady]

Perhaps my hon. Friend can enlighten me on that. My assumption is that it is possible for such people to vote, albeit with some difficulty, as long as they have not been out of the country for the period of years that would lead to a prohibition.

The mishmash of rules relating to the franchise deserves a moment’s attention. Before we address the question of how we vote, it would surely make sense to look at the related issue of who should vote in this country. Broadly speaking, there are three categories of participant in British elections other than that of a full British citizen resident in the United Kingdom. First, there are Irish citizens, who have the same rights to vote here as British citizens, except that those who are living overseas may not vote even if they are on the electoral register here. Also, in contrast to Commonwealth citizens, Irish citizens are not subject to a qualifying period before they can be included on the electoral roll here. Secondly, Commonwealth citizens have a right to vote in Westminster, European, local and devolved elections when they qualify to do so. For this purpose, they qualify if they do not require leave to enter or remain in the country, or if they have been granted such leave. This right extends to Gibraltar on the same basis. Thirdly, the citizens of European Union member states who are resident here through having exercised their right of freedom of movement around the EU have the right to vote in European, local and devolved elections, although not in general elections. There is therefore a rather complex combination of different participants, and of levels of participation, in the franchise.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Is it not remarkable that this country is almost unique in the world in allowing such a large number of citizens of other countries to vote? For example, in the United States, only US citizens are allowed to take part in elections, and that applies to all elections, as well as referendums.

[Mr Brady]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If I am not mistaken, his wife is American. In the United States, it is a given that citizenship and the right to vote go together. At the very least, we should expect that when we choose to extend the right to vote to non-British citizens—

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Brady]

I would not want to keep the Opposition spokesman waiting, as he appears to be pregnant with a very important point.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman has started a theme running in my mind now. Please will he tell off the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith)? It is impossible to be “almost unique”. It is a bit like pregnancy; something either is or is not unique. In regard to one of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), the truth is that we have reciprocal arrangements with the Republic of Ireland.

[Mr Brady]

Yes, we have reciprocal arrangements, although they are often not entirely symmetrical. For example, I believe that there is a qualifying period of residence for a British citizen in the Republic of Ireland before the reciprocal arrangement comes into effect. As a Brady, I hold no malice whatever towards those of Irish extraction, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows well, we allow an entirely different situation to exist in relation to citizens of Commonwealth countries. We have reciprocal arrangements with some of the smaller countries—typically the Caribbean countries, some of which have provided a significant number of residents in this country. However, the bigger Commonwealth countries such as India, Pakistan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand offer no reciprocal rights to British citizens living in those countries, even though we allow their citizens to vote when they are here.

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is also a distinction to be drawn between voting in general elections, where the rights of residents are important, and voting in a referendum involving constitutional issues that relate less to a right of residence and more to the issues that will affect our children and grandchildren and future generations? In such cases, the country of which a person is a citizen is of more central importance than where they happen to live.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brady]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made the point brilliantly. The requirement that one should be a member of this country—that we should extend voting rights only to those who are fully part of our country—would surely seem entirely normal and entirely rational in almost any country of the world. However, as my hon. Friend says, it seems even more so when we are considering the nature of our democracy and the rules on which we base our constitution for the future.

As I make these brief remarks, I stand here in a spirit of enormous optimism—which is my usual state—because I happen to know that the Opposition support my position. At the very least, they supported the position that my amendments encapsulate as recently as 2008, when, in the document “Citizenship: Our Common Bond”, Lord Goldsmith said:

“Voting in all elections, along with holding a passport, is the ultimate badge of citizenship.”

He went on to say that

“I do propose that government gives consideration to making a clear connection between citizenship and the right to vote by limiting in principle the right to vote in Westminster elections to UK citizens. This would recognise that the right to vote is one of the hallmarks of the political status of citizens: it is not a means of expressing closeness between countries.”

That deals with the concerns that many of us might feel. We have a real strength of affection and affinity for the Commonwealth and we would not wish by any means to offend Commonwealth partners or their citizens. Citizenship carries some rights, but they are entirely different from those that come from that closeness, friendship and relationship between countries, just as Lord Goldsmith said.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Brady]

I hope that the shadow Minister will now endorse the views of his predecessor in the previous Labour Government’s views on this subject.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, I am pregnant again with this issue. The hon. Gentleman should not confuse the views of a former Minister with the views of the Labour party. It sometimes seems that former Ministers hold all sorts of fascinating views that they did not hold when they were in office—[Interruption.] I include myself in this. One day the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), will be a former Minister and he might then have some views. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) should not confuse the views—that was not the Labour party’s view at all.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brady]

As my hon. Friend says, the Minister is a good man. He said as recently as 6 September, in the winding-up speeches on Second Reading:

“It is perfectly normal in most countries that in order for someone to be able to vote for the national Parliament they have to be a citizen of the country concerned. That is a perfectly normal process and we are not changing it in this Bill. It is the existing system and I feel sure that Mrs Clegg will cope with it perfectly well.”—[Official Report, 6 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 128.]

I am sure that Mrs Clegg will cope with it perfectly well, whatever we do this evening. However, crucially, although my hon. Friend the Minister appears to share my view that it should be perfectly normal for the right to vote in general elections to be reserved for citizens, as it is in most countries around the world—in almost every country around the world—it is not yet perfectly normal in this country. The purpose of these amendments is to begin to lay the ground for that important change in the franchise.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am reading the hon. Gentleman’s amendments with interest. I note that Republic of Ireland citizens would, as I understand it, lose the right to vote in the referendum if his amendments were to go through. However, those who live in Northern Ireland but have Republic of Ireland citizenship, so long as they were ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland, would be allowed to vote. My question is about those from Northern Ireland who might have Republic of Ireland citizenship—not UK subjects—but who subsequently move to Scotland. Would they vote or would they not, and how would we enable that to happen or not to happen?

[Mr Brady]

I think I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I think that for the purposes of this Bill it would be perfectly simple. We are talking about a referendum vote that will take place on a single occasion, so any change we make in the franchise for the referendum would clearly depend on their status at that time.

[Mr MacNeil]

A particular instance might be the case of an individual who has never lived in the Irish Republic but who has chosen Irish citizenship and has then moved to Scotland.

[Mr Brady]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that I tabled amendment 60 in a spirit of compromise with the intention of avoiding re-opening difficult debates that had taken place at the time of the Good Friday agreement. It is of course an inconsistency set against amendment 59, but that is its sole purpose.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being very generous, for giving way. May I clarify something? I realise that the amendments relate only to the referendum, but does he think that the perfect normality to which he has referred should apply to general elections? In other words, does he think that Commonwealth citizens should no longer be allowed to vote in British general elections, too?

[Mr Brady]

Absolutely. Like Lord Goldsmith in the document that I have quoted, I think we should move towards a position in which we treat the right to vote in a general election in this country as one of the rights and privileges that go hand in hand with full citizenship. I would like to see that happen. Clearly, it goes beyond the scope of this Bill—it is a debate that is yet to happen—but I hope it is a debate that we will have, because I think that most people in this country would be quite surprised even to hear what the franchise is for a general election. I certainly think that the hon. Gentleman and most other Members of this House would be hard pressed to advance a compelling case for the strange mishmash of franchise that I have set out this evening. We should simplify it and we should set out that important principle. I hope that the Opposition will continue with the rational position that was adopted on this subject in the previous Parliament.

[Mr Dodds]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Brady]

I think I should give way to Northern Ireland.

[Mr Dodds]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to Northern Ireland, but I do not claim entirely to represent Northern Ireland on this issue. I want to clarify the intention and consequences of amendment 60, if it were passed. I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and where he is going with this, both as regards the referendum and elections in general. However, would the effect of amendment 60 be to include people who have chosen Irish citizenship in Northern Ireland post-1998 and exclude people who became Irish citizens before the Belfast agreement in 1998?

[Mr Brady]

I think the amendment as it stands would do that. I am entirely open to the right hon. Gentleman’s point and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister, in working hard to accommodate these reasonable concerns, could take steps to deal with that point, too, if he wanted to at a later stage of the Bill. The crucial point—the point of principle—is that it is even more important in a referendum on our constitution than in the franchise for a general election that we should have a rational franchise that we can all defend and explain to citizens of this country and that we should celebrate the importance of the right to vote. We should understand that the right to vote in a British election is a privilege that has been hard fought for over generations and that is fundamental to what it is to be a British citizen. It is time that we limited that right to those who are British citizens.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to amendment 332, which is in my name. The amendment would have the effect of lowering the voting age for the referendum to make sure that all people who are aged 16 on the day of the referendum can have their say on something that will affect them when they are 18 and eligible to vote in the general election. All those who are aged 16 on the day of the referendum, whenever it is, will be 18 or over by the time we get to the general election, if it is in May 2015, so the provisions will absolutely affect them.

I have a slight interest to declare. I speak as a former trustee of the UK Youth Parliament—

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Brady]

The shadow Minister may be disturbed, and I apologise for that, but, first, those Commonwealth bonds should be reciprocal, and they are not in the instances that he has set out. Secondly, on the Cypriot community in this country, can the hon. Gentleman give us any reason why somebody who chooses to make their home here permanently and wishes to be a part of our political process should not seek British citizenship?

[Chris Bryant]

Of course I want to encourage people to take up British citizenship, but our legislation is shaped as it is because of Mrs Thatcher. She introduced the British Nationality Act 1981, followed by the Representation of the People Act 1983, which guarantees citizens of Commonwealth countries the right to vote in this country. I very rarely say so, but on that occasion Mrs Thatcher got it right. [Hon. Members: “Resign!”] I think I might have lost the Rhondda there. There are other occasions on which I do not agree with her very much.

Let us take another instance. Papua New Guinea was never a British colony. It was an Australian colony and, therefore, part of the Commonwealth, but I delight in the fact that, because the main sport in Papua New Guinea is rugby league, Papua New Guineans come to the UK. There are some significant and famous Papua New Guineans playing that sport in northern England, and I am delighted that while they are here, they want to take an active part in British politics and are able to vote.

For that matter, I am delighted that Fijians, in significant numbers, want to join the British armed forces. All hon. Members will want to pay tribute to the role that Fijians have played in Iraq, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Fiji is no longer a Commonwealth country, because of the situation in Suva, the military regime there and the fact it does not seem to have in place a direct course back to democracy, so I ask the Minister, why have we not amended the list under schedule 3 to the 1981 Act? Does he feel it right to leave it precisely as it is?

I say to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West that the bond that I cite in relation to the Commonwealth also applies to Ireland. It is pretty difficult to unpick our entire historical relationship and the steady process towards peace on the island of Ireland, but through the hon. Gentleman’s amendment there would be a real danger of him doing so. I value our relationship with the Republic of Ireland. It is important that British people be able to continue to vote there, and others here.

[Mr Brady]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman may be about to raise the issue of whether the relationship should be directly comparable, and perhaps it should be, but my instinct would be to say that if one wants to move towards greater compatibility or to reciprocal arrangements between different countries, one should do so through a Representation of the People Act, not a referendum Act.

[Mr Brady]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I was not going to make that point. I have said that I am an eternal optimist, and as one door closes another door opens, so, given the importance of the bond between people in different countries, which he believes gives rise to a right for them to vote in elections in this country, I assume that he is about to say that British expatriates, who may wish to return to this country in the fullness of time, have at least an equal bond, and that he will therefore endorse amendment 61 later this evening.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

Many issues have been raised and many amendments have been tabled. I shall try to deal with them briefly—

[Mr Brady]

At a canter.

[Mr Harper]

Indeed.

The amendments would amend clause 2, which sets out the franchise for voting in the referendum. It might be helpful to tell hon. Members who have tabled amendments that, with one exception about peers, which I shall outline, we have simply applied the franchise for Westminster elections in the Bill. We thought that that was appropriate. We have not used the one-off referendum as an opportunity for experimenting with the franchise.

Amendments 59 and 60 would prevent Commonwealth and Irish citizens from voting. Given that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) said that he was not only an enormous but an eternal optimist, I hope that he can hold that optimism in reserve for a future date, when we might revert to those matters.

To explain why we are here, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), who is no longer in his place, put his finger on it when he mentioned the history of our country and how citizenship came about in the first place. I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), but he made a sensible point when he referred to our history. I also agreed with him when, in speaking about the Commonwealth, he drew attention to the fact that around 10% of our Army is made up of people who would not otherwise be eligible to vote in this country. They serve our country well, and several have been prepared to pay the ultimate price in that service. The point was sensible and well made.

We wanted to stick with the current franchise for the referendum. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West made a wider point, to which it is worth the Committee’s reverting. When the House has considered other Bills to reform the electoral arrangements, it has always taken the view that it wanted to stick with the existing position, enabling some qualifying Commonwealth and Irish citizens to vote. Of course, it is open to the House, if asked to consider the matter in future, to disagree and try to make a change. I will think some more about the matter, and consider whether it is appropriate for the Government to make such proposals in future. However, I ask my hon. Friend to stick with the existing, tested franchise for the referendum. Indeed, he said in his opening remarks that he did not want us to legislate in haste. All the proposals to fiddle with the franchise specifically for the referendum constitute legislating in haste. There are perfectly sensible arguments for doing as my hon. Friend suggests and for making other franchise changes, but I think that it is best to stick with what we use for our Westminster elections for the referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

Of course it could. If the voting system were changed, the public might reconsider and want to change, either back to the old system or to another one. That has been the experience of other countries that have reformed their electoral systems. It is perfectly sensible to say that that could happen, and my hon. Friend is not really setting out an argument for why we should change in this case.

[Mr Brady]

The Minister is trying to be helpful, and I get the clear message that there may be more legislation in the not too distant future, at which point this issue may be revisited. Can he help me a little further by saying whether the Government believe, as a matter of principle, that the franchise should be adjusted to have citizenship as its basis?

[Mr Harper]

I do not think that my hon. Friend would expect me to set out that position now. As I said, referring to what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, we have arrived at this position because of our history and traditions. Parliament can, in the future, consider the extent to which it wishes to recognise that history and those traditions—how we have got where we are and how this country was created—or whether it wishes to adopt a pure system such as those adopted by countries without that long history. The House can debate and decide that issue at a future date. The Government do not wish to make that change now, but I will listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West has said, and I will think on it some more.

[Mr Brady]

The only argument that my hon. Friend has advanced against changing the franchise for the referendum is that it would be legislating in haste and we should give the issue deeper consideration before taking that action. He has not actually argued against the point of principle, and I hope that he will express a view on whether the franchise in elections in this country should be predominantly a matter for citizens, as indeed on 16 September he agreed was perfectly normal and was the case almost everywhere else in the world.

[Mr Harper]

I did say that it was perfectly normal in other countries, but my hon. Friend knows that this country is special—[Interruption.] It has a unique history and we are where we are because of the experiences that we have had in the past. As Conservatives, we should not lightly throw off those historical resonances—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

But my point is that 14-year-olds on the day of the referendum will be 18 on the date of the next general election, so that argument simply does not make sense.

Also, the hon. Lady may not like this—I am happy about it, although she might not be—but I should point out that under the coalition Government’s proposals, referendums are likely to be more frequent rather than less, as we have proposed bringing them forward under our referendum lock. They might be referendums on European matters, local referendums or mayoral referendums. Therefore, those young people who are not yet 18 who miss out on voting in the referendum next year will find that there will be many referendums in the future on which they can vote, once they are 18.

My final point to the hon. Lady is that this issue is not a small one, because if all 16-year-olds on the date of the referendum were able to vote, that would mean electoral registration officers having to register those who are 15, which is a significant change to the way that they collect data. The hon. Lady said that the change would not cause much trouble, but it would actually cause a significant amount of trouble. I therefore hope that she will not press her amendment 332 to a vote, but if she does, I urge hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—and particularly those on the Government side—to vote against it. I also hope that those who are otherwise in favour of lowering the voting age can be happy that this is not the place to do so, because as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West said, he can bring forward a private Member’s Bill on the issue, which would be the place to have that debate. I urge hon. Members not to press their amendments to a vote.

[Mr Brady]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is being generous with his time, but he has not yet dealt with amendment 61, and I hope that he is about to do so.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend: I had indeed omitted to talk about his amendment 61, about overseas voters. He will know that at the moment there is a 15-year time limit, to which he drew attention, for British citizens who live overseas. The Government are considering whether to bring proposals before the House in due course. Again, however, I would say to him that this Bill, on the referendum, is not the place to explore that issue. However, he is an eternal optimist, and he might not have to wait eternally before he can debate the matter in the House—perhaps in the near future. I hope that that will satisfy him and enable him, in all good conscience, not to press his amendments to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brady]

These issues—the size, extent and description of the franchise—are absolutely fundamental and of grave concern. They are issues that can decide the outcome of general elections in this country and, as I said earlier, could decide the outcome of the vote that we are discussing. I know that the Minister has sought to be helpful. He has also sought to encourage my optimism by deferring matters to a future date. I think that this matter is crucial.

I accept that some elements need further debate—we need, for example, to be very careful about how we handle relations with Commonwealth countries. As the Opposition spokesman said, we must ensure that we get things right when it comes to the Republic of Ireland. These are complex matters. Reluctantly, I will take the Minister’s advice and defer these issues for another occasion. I shall therefore withdraw amendment 59 and not press amendment 60. However, I view it as a crucial issue of principle that British citizens should be able to vote in British elections, so I shall press amendment 61 to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 332, page 2, line 19, at end insert ‘, and

(c) the persons who, on that date, are aged 16 or 17 and would, but for their age, be eligible for registration as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency.’—(Natascha Engel.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.