G8 and NATO Summits

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I respect the hon. Gentleman’s views, not least because he served in the military and knows about what he speaks. Regarding the political surge in Afghanistan, he is perhaps being a little too pessimistic. In Helmand province, the area for which we have been responsible, we have seen the excellent Governor Mangal make some real steps forward in governance. There are district governors in almost all the province now, and we have seen a huge amount of progress in wheat seed distribution, building schools and hospitals and providing basic levels of service. But clearly we need to do more, and what happens politically and in terms of reconciliation will determine the nature of the outcome we achieve in Afghanistan.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I welcome the declaration at the NATO summit on the interim ballistic missile defence system. Russia, however, remains hostile to the scheme. Has progress been made in persuading Russia that the scheme’s primary point is to protect Europe from ballistic missile threats from rogue nations, not from Russia?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, it is still a difficult discussion between NATO and Russia, but I think there is a level of understanding that the point of having a ballistic missile defence shield is to protect Europe from potential threats, including, for instance, Iran. It is important to remember that this is not instead of nuclear deterrence—it sits along side nuclear deterrence, which remains a key part of our defence posture.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

I am completely confident that the members of the West Lothian commission will read the hon. Gentleman’s remarks with great interest.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

T4. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when the plans to refurbish No. 70 Whitehall were approved?

[Mr Maude]

Those plans were approved in 2008, when the current Leader of the Opposition was Minister for the Cabinet Office. It is therefore surprising that the shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office chose recently to mount an unprovoked attack on the decision made by his party leader.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the hon. Lady knows, the Government have committed hundreds of millions of pounds to investment in superfast broadband. She also knows that the Chancellor is due to make an announcement tomorrow on the 10 cities that will receive further support for improved broadband speeds, which of course are important not just for democratic participation but for a range of services that we want our citizens to be able to access.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

T10. Has my right hon. Friend assessed the possibility that Orkney and Shetland could opt to remain part of the United Kingdom if the rest of Scotland voted for a separation?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

That would be a popular proposal in the Liberal Democrat Whips Office, but I fervently hope that the issue will never arise, because I very much hope that the Scottish people will agree with the biggest body of opinion here and elsewhere, which is that we are stronger, safer and more prosperous as a United Kingdom.

Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The hon. Gentleman knows that the procedure to which he refers does not in any sense imply that Members outside Scotland cannot vote on the final stages of measures. The Bill is very much the thin end of the wedge and would create two classes of Members of Parliament. That is my fundamental concern.

A Government could have a majority that depends on votes in Scotland, Wales or northern England—people assume that that would be a Labour Government, but politics change, and what happens in 10, 20, 30 or 40 years may not be what people expect from today’s politics. After all, some 60 years ago, the Conservative party had a majority of seats and votes in Scotland, so we must think of the long-term consequences. If a Government had a UK majority in the House that depended on votes outside England, Bills that applied “only to England”, on which Members outside England could not vote, would need to be supported by the Opposition. The Government would therefore not be the Government for large parts of the legislative programme. Opposition spokespeople would be the de facto Ministers for Education, Health and so on for England, and the real UK Ministers could not perform their roles because they would effectively not command a majority in the House. That would move us towards a position whereby there were two Governments in the House: a UK Government and a second Government formed by the shadow Front Bench for those “English-only” matters where there was no majority for that Government. We would reach that position if we followed the route of not allowing Members of Parliament outside England to vote on specific matters.

My position is clear. If there is genuine concern among people in England—I accept that there may well be—it should be addressed through proper devolution, and perhaps a proper English Parliament, not by trying to tinker with arrangements in this House in such a way as to undermine its working.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman was a strong advocate of Scottish devolution in the 1990s. One of the arguments of the pro-devolutionists was that, when there was a UK majority in the House but Scotland voted another way, there was a democratic deficit. If that was correct for Scotland, why does the same not apply to England?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

If I were to try to answer that question, I would go beyond the amendment. I might be able to address that point on Third Reading, if it is made again.

I am concerned that the Bill might lead to the creation of two Governments in the House. It is liable to lead to genuine disagreement, tension and political division between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I do not want that to happen. I strongly support a Scottish Parliament and devolution elsewhere in the UK, but I want us to remain together as one UK. That is why there is a fundamental flaw in the concept of two classes of Member in the House. That was a preamble to considering amendment 6, which would at least improve the position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

I am sure that colleagues on the Government side of the House are absolutely delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) is the Prime Minister.

[Iain Stewart]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on having proceeded this far with her Bill. Does she accept that if the Bill became law, we could introduce measures that would protect England without barring any Member from voting on legislation? I refer to the idea put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and others for a double majority system in which Bills that applied only to one territorial part of the United Kingdom would require the support both of the whole House and of Members from that territorial part in order to be passed.

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct; there has been a substantial body of work looking at exactly how to resolve this question without creating the completely impossible situation of having two classes of MP.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), and I accept much of what he said. I do not often agree with the Scottish National party, but I agree with him that his party has a neat solution at least to the Scottish dimension of the West Lothian question, namely that Scotland should become separate from the rest of the United Kingdom.

I will not be tempted into a debate on the merits or otherwise of separation; suffice it to say that I completely oppose it. I am a proud Unionist, and I will do all that I can to prevent it from happening. However, the Union is under threat. That is why the Bill is so important, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) on presenting it. The Scottish nationalists secured an overall majority in the election in May, giving the lie somewhat to Labour’s assertion in the devolution debate that devolution had killed nationalism stone dead. In fact, nationalism is in rude health, and if we are not careful, we will be going down the road of separation.

Part of the problem lies not in Scotland, but in England. I have the advantage of being a Scot representing an English constituency, and a fair number of constituents complain to me about the fact that certain matters affecting only England can be determined by Members from Scotland. I am not suggesting that we have reached a crisis point, but bit by bit the resentment is growing. If we do nothing and let it lie unchecked, at some point in the future we will find ourselves in very difficult constitutional waters, and the Union will be threatened.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend demonstrates something. It is sometimes said by those in the House that only Conservative Members are concerned about the issue, but the reason they are concerned is that our constituents are concerned. We do get a significant number of letters about the matter. I do in relation to a range of issues, including tuition fees, and decisions that are made. If we do not deal with the matter, we will have a problem. My hon. Friend has made an important point.

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is important that we address these points when we are in relatively calm waters. There is not an impending crisis, so we can take some time to consider the matter carefully. I welcome the announcement yesterday of the commission. I await with interest the answers to the pertinent questions that my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire asked about the composition, remit and time scale of that commission. It is right that it should take its time and examine carefully the complex issues that it will deal with, but I sound a slight warning note: that should not be an excuse to kick the issue into the long grass and so far into the future that it never reaches a conclusion. I would like to see a specific timetable showing when the commission will report and we can take matters forward because, as I say, doing nothing will stoke up big problems.

We have heard from several Labour Members their objections to the Bill and to other possible solutions to the West Lothian question, but we hear absolutely nothing about what their solution would be.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am very clear. I hope that what comes out of this is some proposal to put to the people. It is bizarre that the one proposal that has not been mentioned is to ask the people what they think. We should put in a referendum a proposal to them about how to resolve the issue. It has to be through some assembly, so that we do not deal through the back door with all the issues that I and the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) have been raising with the Minister.

[Iain Stewart]

I am rather puzzled by the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I am not clear whether he wants a separate referendum from an independence referendum or an English Parliament. Is that what he is suggesting?

[Thomas Docherty]

I am suggesting that there be a constitutional convention, as there was in Scotland, at the end of which a proposal is put to the people of England about the legislative system that they want.

[Iain Stewart]

It is an intriguing suggestion and I invite the hon. Gentleman to submit that idea to the commission. I am not sure whether he speaks for the Labour Front-Bench team on that proposal. Perhaps a promotion is in order, but my key point is that doing nothing is not an option and we have to address the issue. I agree that we should not create a separate class of Member in the House and start banning certain Members from debating or voting on specific measures. Whether a self-denying ordinance could apply is for individual Members to decide, but there is a workable solution, which I alluded to earlier. I call it a double majority, where we do not exclude any Member from voting on a particular measure, but where, if a measure applies only to one territorial part of the UK, it has to secure the support of a majority of Members from that area as well as of the House as a whole. That is a matter that should be explored further.

I will not speak any longer because I want to see the debate come to a timely conclusion, but I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire again. She has moved the debate forward substantially and I look forward to the Minister's comments in response to her questions.

Public Disorder

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The time that I spent in Croydon with the right hon. Gentleman was incredibly powerful. I heard about the immense frustration, and the anger, that those shopkeepers, householders and tenants felt. Let me say this to the right hon. Gentleman, however. The problem was that the police were not on the streets. The problem was not about police budgets in four years’ time, but about the availability of the police right now. There are 32,000 officers in the Met. We needed to get more of them on to the streets more quickly, and more of them to Croydon. It is about now: it is not about the budgets of the future.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I welcomed the Prime Minister’s comments about the role of social media. May I urge him to look into what might be called the internet equivalent of hoax 999 calls? It would seem that the police have had to waste considerable time dealing with false and malicious rumours about mob activity, and the law and penalties must be fully up to date with that.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Just as the police have been using technology more effectively, so the criminals are now using technology more effectively. An awful lot of hoaxes and false trails were laid on Twitter, BlackBerry Messenger and the rest, and we need a major piece of work to make sure the police have all the electronic capabilities that they need to hunt down and beat the criminal.

Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Friday 11th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) on introducing the Bill. As we have heard, the question it addresses has excited people throughout history. I will not add to the exchange about history between the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), but in its current guise the question has been around since the late 1970s, when Tam Dalyell, the former Member for West Lothian, posed it during deliberations on the Scotland Bill in 1977, although I believe it was Enoch Powell who coined the phrase “the West Lothian question” during those debates.

Like the Barnett formula, this question is one of the perennial issues in respect of devolution. I often ask myself why that is the case. Should we simply not ask the question any more, as Lord Irvine has suggested? Is this just a constitutional nicety that we should ignore? The answer to that is that if left answered, the question would gnaw away at the bonds that hold the Union together. I am a Unionist and the last thing I ever want to see is the Union of our United Kingdom being ripped up. That is why we must turn our minds to finding an answer to this question. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire rightly said that Members representing English constituencies get lobbied by our constituents on why some Scottish Members vote on matters that apply only to England. I am not saying that that is the primary topic of conversation down the “Nut and Squirrel” every Friday night, but it does come up sometimes.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you have been in the Chair since the business of the House started this morning so you may not be aware that the High Court has just ruled in favour of the six local authorities who took the Secretary of State for Education to court over his Building Schools for the Future announcement. You will be aware, Mr Speaker, of the extent of the feeling on both sides of the House about this decision, and you will also appreciate the grave implications it will have for the policy of the Department for Education. It also calls into question the competence of the Secretary of State. Mr Speaker, have you received any notification that the Secretary of State will come to the House and explain the botched decision he made and say how he will move forward to make sure capital programmes for schools, including in my own constituency, will now be reinstated?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

No.

[Iain Stewart]

I was about to give an example of why it is still extremely valid to address the West Lothian question. Last May’s general election did not produce a parliamentary majority for any one party, but it did produce a majority in England for the Conservative party; the Conservatives won a clear overall majority of the seats in England. I accept that no party commanded an overall majority so we had to proceed to a coalition Government, but an alternative coalition to the current one could have been found, such as the “rainbow option” of Labour Members, Liberal Democrats, nationalists, Ulster Members and independents. In that case, the people of England who had voted clearly for a Conservative Government would have been denied that Government, and we would, I think, have entered uncharted constitutional waters. I think there would have been a strong uprising in England on the basis that the will of the English voters had been thwarted. That situation did not arise, but it could have, so this is a very live issue.

A similar situation may arise in this Parliament over a vote to reverse the ban on hunting. That ban applies only to England and Wales from a vote in this House, because the matter is devolved entirely to the Scottish Parliament. Let us suppose there was a clear majority among English and Welsh Members to reverse that ban, but in the House as a whole, with the addition of Scottish Members, there was a wish to keep the law as it is. Why should Scottish Members be able to influence the decision in England or in England and Wales? That situation could arise and, although it might not be the most dominant issue in our postbags, we have to provide for that eventuality.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Will he also consider what might happen in this review that we have been promised? What happens if the commission recommends changing the arrangements to answer the West Lothian question, but that is then unrepresentative of English opinion?

[Iain Stewart]

My hon. Friend raises an intriguing possibility. I hope that the commission does report, but we cannot move to a new arrangement without the agreement of those in the existing system; that is part of our process of constitutional evolution. I hope that we do get that commission and I gently encourage my Front-Bench colleagues to speed it up, because I will wholeheartedly support it.

I wish to discuss an intriguing point made by a former Secretary of State for Scotland in the previous Government, Helen Liddell. It relates to a separate issue but it makes the argument well. When we were debating whether the United Kingdom should join the euro, the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), set out five tests by which we should judge whether it was appropriate for the United Kingdom to do so. She made the point that a sixth test should form part of the overall considerations, which was the opportunity cost of not joining: was there a cost to the United Kingdom of not joining the euro? Similarly, we should consider the opportunity cost of not addressing the West Lothian question because if it is left unchecked at some point it will come back to undermine the Union. As a Unionist, that is the last thing that I want. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) was correct to say that this is an evolutionary process. I did not have the benefit of being tutored by Professor Bogdanor, but I was always taught by the equally eminent Professor Michael Rush at the university of Exeter that the British constitution is a product of evolution, not revolution. We should proceed on that basis, but that should not preclude us from turning our minds to this issue.

Theoretically, there are three perfect solutions to the West Lothian question, although I believe that we should reject them because they have other consequences that are either impractical or undesirable. The first option is that the Union ends, which is the wish of the Scottish National party, whose Members are clearly here in excessive number to debate this matter. They do have a perfect option, because under their solution the number of Scottish Members in this House would be zero and the West Lothian question would therefore not arise. However, for all sorts of economic, cultural and social reasons, I do not wish the Union to end.

The second option is to go back to the arrangement that was in place before we had the Scottish Parliament, either by abolishing that Parliament or by following the intriguing suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) that Members of this House who represent Scottish constituencies should then form the Scottish Parliament and on certain days—for example, Wednesdays and Thursdays—only English Members would debate in this place. I fear that that is not a practical option at the moment. There is certainly no appetite in Scotland for reversing the Scottish Parliament, and as it was set up by a referendum it can be undone only by a referendum. That may become an option at some point, but I do not see it as a viable option now. Nevertheless, the suggestion would provide a neat solution to the West Lothian question.

The third option is to move to a fully federal United Kingdom, with one United Kingdom Parliament legislating on the big national issues—the economy, international affairs, defence and so on—and the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly and a body for England then dealing, on an equal basis, with the issues affecting those areas. Such a system works perfectly well in Germany, Australia, Canada and many other countries, but the problem would be how to solve the “English question” in a federal situation.

One option would be to have a separate English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington said, and as others have argued, the difficulty with that is that England would represent more than 80% of the population and more than 80% of the gross domestic product in one unit. I cannot think of a stable modern democracy with an advanced economy where there is such an overwhelming dominant part in a federation. Any other country with a federal system contains two or more big states that balance each other out. For example, Canada contains Ontario and Quebec, and Germany contains Bavaria and North Rhine-Westphalia. If England were to be a separate entity in a federal system, the arrangement would have too much of an imbalance.

The other option would be to atomise England into regions—for example, the north-east, the south-west, Greater London and so on. There may be various permutations, but there is simply no appetite in England for that, even in the part of England where there was, allegedly, the highest demand for a regional government—the north-east. When people there were given the option of a regional government a few years ago, they overwhelmingly rejected it. In addition, we would face enormous difficulty in dividing England up. Our debates on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill have included an argument about a cross-border constituency involving Cornwall and Devon. Goodness knows what would happen if we tried to draw a boundary involving Gloucestershire, Cornwall, Dorset and other areas to constitute “the south-west of England”. I simply do not believe that federalism is a viable option in this country.

All that brings us to an imperfect answer, as we are not going to create a perfect solution to the West Lothian question unless we go down one of those three avenues. The Bill is a helpful first step in paving the way to finding that answer. I have looked at all the options over many years, although not for as long as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington. I have ruled out some and I do take seriously the comment made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that we would encounter difficulties if we started excluding Members from voting on particular bits of legislation. I strongly hold the view that every Member in this House is equal and when we start tinkering with that, we enter dangerous waters.

I do believe, however, that there is a solution and I am happy to endorse the one proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend: some form of a double majority. In such a system no Member would be excluded from participating in a debate or voting on a particular Bill or part of a Bill, but there should then be a requirement that if that Bill applied wholly or exclusively to one part of the United Kingdom, an additional majority would be required among Members from that area.

[Chris Bryant]

But is the difficulty not that, for the most part, Governments introduce legislation in our system and a Government who were nervous about their majority would simply ensure that Bills contained separate clauses relating to Wales, to Northern Ireland and to Scotland, so we would not be any further forward?

[Iain Stewart]

I would answer that by saying that a Government who do not command the majority in all parts of the kingdom should approach with caution legislating against the will of a part where they do not command a majority. For example, one of the main arguments for devolution was that this place would legislate against the wishes of Scotland, if the Government did not command a majority in Scotland. If the Government do not command a majority, they should approach with care legislating for the whole kingdom, if that does not command support across the board.

[Chris Bryant]

One should assume that Governments will be unscrupulous. Hon. Members are always scrupulous, but Governments, in their corporate management of taking business through the House, might be unscrupulous. There is the myth that the previous Labour Government did not have a majority in England, but they had the majority of seats in England. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that the Bill will not solve the problem.

[Iain Stewart]

I will not comment on the previous Government’s approach to legislation.

[Chris Bryant]

It is the same now.

[Iain Stewart]

I beg to differ.

As I have said, there is an opportunity cost to not addressing the issue. My contention is that doing nothing carries a greater price than doing something, which is why I strongly welcome the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen]

Once again, the hon. Gentleman comments from a sedentary position. The previous Government did not have the majority of the votes in England. I am a Unionist, and I wholeheartedly support the Union. The biggest risk posed by not addressing the West Lothian question is that the dissatisfaction of English voters, rather than the dissatisfaction of Scottish or Welsh electors, will force the Union apart.

[Iain Stewart]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Sadly, I do not have the statistics, but I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), rather than the hon. Member for Rhondda, is correct about the outcome of the 2005 election in England. Hon. Members with BlackBerrys may be able to provide us with that information. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will debate that one in the bar afterwards.

Doing nothing is more dangerous than doing something. I am yet to hear a convincing view that the double-majority option is worse than the current situation. The approach should, of course, be gradual. We should evolve our constitution, rather than smashing it up and piecing it together again, which is why I am happy to support the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire. I hope that the Bill is read a Second time today and that it gets a fair wind in its later stages.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

The Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) is tremendously important because the West Lothian question is the constitutional question of the day. That question and reform of the House of Lords are the two issues with which politicians and parliamentarians have wrestled since just before the first world war, although no great solution to either has come forward. Today’s debate gives us the opportunity to examine what the solution to the question might be and how the Bill might contribute.

Although I am sympathetic to what the Bill is an attempt to do, I have several concerns about its details, some of which were spelled out by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), when we get down to the approach to Bills that Governments might take. What classifications would we have? Some issues are devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, while some apply throughout the United Kingdom and others are purely for England. A Bill might cover English issues and matters that are not devolved to Wales but are devolved to Scotland. Would a Standing Order of the House allow English and Welsh Members to consider that Bill, but not the Scots or the Northern Irish? What if one clause of a Bill related to all parts of the United Kingdom, but all the other clauses related only to England? Would Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland join proceedings in Committee and on Report to vote on that particular clause, although they had been kept out of Committee and Report for every other part of the Bill, subject to the Standing Order that would follow from the Bill? The sheer complexities of clarifying territorial extent are probably too great.

Our present position is relatively straightforward. An Act of Parliament can technically overrule a devolved power, but Governments have not been willing to bring forward such a measure because of the great constitutional investment involved in establishing the devolved authorities, all of which were backed by referendums in their constituent parts. If the Bill were passed, England would be protected purely by Standing Orders. It is almost an insult to the English to say, “We had a referendum and then a Parliament for Scotland, and we carried that out in a thorough and proper way, but for the English, we will have a Standing Order.” Of course, the drawback to a Standing Order is that an incoming Government could simply remove it so that all MPs could once again vote on all Bills in Committee and on Report. They would lose little political capital if they did so, because a comparatively small amount of political capital would have been invested to set up the previous system, unlike under the referendums prior to setting up the systems of devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Stage two from this Bill seems to involve fundamental flaws of definition and description. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) suggested, it could give rise to ridiculous situations. We will shortly be asked by their lordships to consider whether the Isle of Wight should remain an individual constituency. I rather like the idea that only one Member of Parliament should be able to vote on that. I know without any doubt which way my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) would vote, but I have a feeling that the Minister would not be entirely happy if the decision of the House was made exclusively by my hon. Friend.

We must be careful about taking territorial extent too far, and there are huge areas in which the situation would not be clear. Let us say that we considered a Finance Bill following the devolution of tax-raising powers to Scotland. Would we go through that Bill with different people sitting on different Committees for each clause, depending on a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Would we have two separate Finance Bills? As the hon. Member for Rhondda said, we could have a succession of Bills to try to tease out regional effectiveness. It would be incredibly difficult to make such a situation work.

I am afraid that I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) because there is a difference between having an in-built majority to stop something throughout the five years of a Parliament, and a hung Parliament. Let us put it this way: roughly 100 seats are not English, so 550 seats are English. If 300 of those 550 seats were held by Conservative Members, the Conservatives would have a complete block on all English legislation for an entire Parliament. In a hung Parliament, there is an acceptance among minority parties that the Government’s business must be carried, but the main Opposition will oppose day in, day out throughout a hung Parliament, as we see in this hung Parliament and as we saw in the 1970s. In such a situation, the official Opposition would have a majority of English seats, and therefore a block on all exclusively English legislation for the whole Parliament, so the Secretaries of State for Health and for Education would find it almost impossible to get any of their legislation through.

[Iain Stewart]

My hon. Friend makes my point for me, as does my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). If the general election produced a clear majority for one party in England, but the result for the United Kingdom as a whole was different, the UK Government should proceed with the utmost caution and not introduce legislation that would be diametrically opposed to the wishes of English Members.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes an important and valid point. The West Lothian question is serious, but the answer is not necessarily one that we have been given so far. Just because the question is right, it does not mean that an answer to it would necessarily work. My hon. Friend is correct to say that if the majority of English seats had been won by Conservatives but we had ended up with a rainbow coalition, it would have caused huge dissatisfaction and opposition within England, as well as a feeling that the Union was not working for England. I want the Union to succeed and prosper, so I want an answer to the West Lothian question to come forward which the English find fair and with which they are comfortable.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington was right to emphasise the issue of fairness, but such fairness needs to be met with constitutional propriety and effectiveness. We have heard a great deal about the fairness so far today, but not about a workable constitutional situation, and that will not do us any good because however much one dislikes the Opposition party being in government, it will be one day, and when it is in government, it must be able to get its programme of government through. The way to stop that programme of government is not to put down so many constitutional man traps that that Government cannot get their business through, but to defeat them at the ensuing general election and reverse the worst elements of what they have done. The Bill would lead to a system that would make it incredibly difficult for a Labour Government to get their English business through, but that is not an answer to the West Lothian question because it would simply mean that that Government would have to reverse the protections that had been introduced, and I would have the gravest concerns about such protections being established purely through Standing Orders of the House.

I know that this is not in the Bill, but its purpose is to establish the declaration so that Standing Orders can then be built either to put in place the double majority suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, or to establish practice in Committee and on Report. Is it right for us to change the whole basis of legislation through Standing Orders? Standing Orders can rightly do many things concerning the hours that we sit and the way that business is timetabled, but they do not tend to change the fundamental way in which legislation is taken through the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the clever—and highly witty, at times—speeches made by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). I also congratulate the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) on getting the Bill before the House. However, my flattery stops at that point, I am afraid.

I have significant difficulties with the Bill, because I believe that it does the exact opposite of what the hon. Lady intends. I believe that she is a good Unionist and that she cares passionately about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, the Bill could be the slippery slope towards the disengagement of that Union, and that should be avoided.

The hon. Member for North East Somerset talked about the ridiculousness and pointlessness of certain legislation, and I believe that if this private Member’s Bill were to be pursued to its ultimate conclusion, we would effectively have what has been described on other occasions as wallpaper. The hon. Lady let the cat out of the bag during her earlier interjection; she said that the Bill wanted only to do something very simple. During my short time at the House, I have found that there is nothing simple about legislation. If we think that a simple piece of legislation can cure ills, we are misguided in our observation.

Some arrant nonsense has been spoken—and, unfortunately, passionately believed by some Members. The idea is that Members of Parliament from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are somehow, to use the parlance of the street, more feckless and lazy than Members from England. That is wrong, and it is condescension of the highest order.

If the Member who made that point wishes to check Hansard or the website theyworkforyou.com for Back-Bench interventions, speeches and contributions to the wealth of the House, he will probably find that there are Members on the Opposition Benches from those regions whose contributions to the debates and activities of the House are above average or significantly greater than some Government Back Benchers. We need to be careful before pointing the finger at the level of skill or contribution brought to this Parliament by Members from the regions.

[Iain Stewart]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that many of us who passionately believe that we have to address the West Lothian question also believe in the equality of the work loads of Members. I do not believe that that is an intractable problem. Although some of my colleagues might believe that for Members from devolved areas there is a lighter load from postbags or parliamentary work, not all of us hold that view.

[Ian Paisley]

I do not think that the view is necessarily commonly held, but we should caution ourselves. When we speak in this place on behalf of the Union and such points are made—not in jest, but seriously—that seriously undermines the standing of the House and its Members. That is not what we should be about. We should bear that in mind.

Elections and Returning Officers

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Laing]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct; I am glad he made that point. We have spoken a lot lately about the need to encourage people to be involved in the democratic process and to encourage all age groups and people across the social and economic spectrum to register and use their vote. I mentioned earlier the number of people who allegedly turned up at the polling station and were denied their right to vote. That number may even be far greater than we estimate, because of the situation that he has described.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

It is also important to note that the problems arose when the turnout was not particularly high. Turnout increased marginally in 2010 compared with the previous general election, but it was nowhere near the turnout figures of 75% or 80% that we used to have in the elections of the 1970s and 1980s. If we return to that level of turnout, I suspect that the problems that occurred will be magnified many times over.

[Mrs Laing]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, absolutely right. That is one of the problems we can foresee. We are all working hard—I know that the Minister in particular is doing so—to bring in individual voter registration as soon as possible. We all hope that individual voter registration will encourage more people to be involved, to register and to use their vote. We also find that where the media tell people that the outcome of an election is a foregone conclusion, many people think that there is no need to go and vote. If we have closer elections and it appears that there could, again, be a change of Government—let us hope not, but I suppose that it will happen one day—people are more likely to vote and there will be higher turnouts.

If the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which is currently before the House of Commons, succeeds in going through Parliament, we will have a referendum next May and it is likely there will be a high turnout—although I have argued that that is not likely. However, in any case, there will be a national plebiscite where everyone will be given the opportunity to vote. That is not very far away. So although we will not have a general election for another four and a half years, we will have a full national election of sorts next May. Therefore, by securing this debate, I hope that I am helping to begin the discussion on matters that need to be taken into consideration before next May and the next set of elections.

One of the subjects that has not yet been fully explored is the role of the Electoral Commission, which is still a fairly new body. In many ways, it has been very successful. However, in some ways, it is still settling into its role. When taking the advice of the Electoral Commission on how to deal with the issue of returning officers and the timing of the count, we discovered that it has no power to require returning officers to act in a particular manner. The Electoral Commission only has the power to issue guidance.

As a matter for consideration, I suggest that such a situation is not fair. The Electoral Commission and its chairman were given the blame for what went wrong at 10 o’clock on election day, but it is not fair that they should take the blame when they had no power beforehand to put matters right. At 10 o’clock on election night, the Electoral Commission had no power to say to individual returning officers, “No, you can’t do this. You must allow people to vote. You must keep the doors open.” It had no power to tell people to act in a particular way. Nobody had any power. The Minister had no power; the Electoral Commission had no power; the local authorities had no power. There is no line of reporting or of authority for electoral registration officers and acting returning officers. In a modern democracy, where we spend hour upon hour in the Chamber discussing the minutiae of elections and their administration, as we have done over the past few days, it is appalling to discover that there is no line of authority whereby the administration of our elections can be properly decided.

In the run-up to the election, during which I had been fairly vocal about the problem of returning officers and the 10 o’clock vote, I found myself in a live radio debate with a particular returning officer, a lady from the north of England. I made the point during that debate that returning officers ought to be responsible to the electorate and ought to act responsibly. The lady’s retort, which was made live on the radio, was more or less along these lines: “How dare you, a Member of Parliament, try to interfere with how I, a returning officer, do my job. I am responsible to no one and I won’t listen to you, Madam.” Those were not her exact words, but it was clear that her message to me and to the three or four people listening was that returning officers were responsible to no one, and she was outraged that I would even suggest that Parliament should take some action in that respect. I was equally outraged in my response, but I will not repeat what I said. The fact is that the count in that constituency took place, I am glad to say, at 10 o’clock on election night.

The 10 o’clock issue is irrelevant; how our electoral system is administered is what is important. Over the past few years, various complications have arisen in elections, such as having more than one election on the same day, or different kinds of elections under different voting systems on the same day, as happens in Scotland. There is a danger that such complications will arise across the country next May, when a referendum and other elections will take place simultaneously in more than 80% of the UK. Indeed, in some parts of the country, three types of election will take place on the same day. On this occasion I do not object in principle to simultaneous elections, although I have done so on other occasions. The purpose of the debate is to open the discussion on how we ensure that elections are undertaken in a proper, measured and watertight fashion.

My first suggestion to the Minister is that the powers and duties of the Electoral Commission should be reconsidered and that perhaps the way forward is that it ought to be given a power to direct returning officers, electoral registration officers and acting returning officers. My second suggestion, which I am happy for the Minister to knock straight on the head, although I think it ought to be discussed, relates to the hypothecation of public money. The Treasury is implacably opposed to hypothecation, and there are good reasons for that, which I have always supported. However, the additional funds for electoral registration officers setting up and administering elections come directly from the Treasury, rather than local taxpayers. That is absolutely right, because if the money came from local taxpayers, a returning officer would have the excuse of saying, “Well, in this local authority we have had a particular problem with housing this year, and we have spent so much money on that that we simply do not have enough to spend on the proper administration of elections.” That would be the case whatever the current concern in a local authority, whether it is asylum seekers or an influx of Gypsies and Travellers. However, such excuses cannot be made because the money spent on elections comes directly from the centre.

Having come directly from the centre, however, that money is not ring-fenced or earmarked, so there is no hypothecation. I am suggesting, for the sake of argument, that the principle of hypothecation in that instance ought to be revisited. We are talking about money allocated from central Government for a specific purpose over a specific period of time, so that money that comes to returning officers and local authorities for the funding of electoral administration ought to be hypothecated and ring-fenced. I appreciate that the Minister may be bound to say that Treasury rules do not permit hypothecation, which I understand, but this is only the beginning of the argument.

--- Later in debate ---

There is no doubt that people are included on the register when they should not be. They are included because of the lax processes pursued by electoral registration professionals, and some of them voted. I know that that is a fact because we knocked on more than 40% of the doors in my constituency during the general election campaign. We had to because I was in the unusual position of fighting a Labour seat for the second time running, and we put in a lot of effort. The number of people we came across who, when we checked them out, were not qualified in any way to be on the electoral register was deeply worrying. When we checked our tellers’ returns, we found that sizeable numbers of those people had voted. It is pointless to have an electoral register unless it is properly constructed and we abide by and take notice of it.

[Iain Stewart]

I have had examples in my constituency of people who have applied to reside permanently in the United Kingdom but are not yet full citizens using their presence on the electoral register as evidence that they are entitled to be here. I totally accept my hon. Friend’s point that the electoral register’s integrity is far from perfect.

[Mr Binley]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s important intervention, which supports my point.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I am tempted to make a partisan comment about the hon. Gentleman’s own political party appealing to extremist views, but I have decided not to.

I do not think that that opinion can be genuinely held. Undoubtedly all politicians presenting themselves for election try to secure the largest number of votes. What I think that AV will do—and here I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister—is put an end to safe seats. I say that as one who represents a seat that many people would probably consider to be historically safe.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

Has the hon. Gentleman considered the position in Australia, which operates a form of the alternative vote? I understand that a large number of seats are won on the first count, and are safe seats.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that the views of the parliamentary Labour party, vast or otherwise, are not specifically relevant to the amendment. Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) by informing him that he can move on.

[Chris Bryant]

I am very grateful, Ms Primarolo. I should have thought that the views of the parliamentary Labour party were slightly relevant to the debate—certainly when it comes to the vote—but obviously I do not seek to challenge your ruling. I merely say to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) that I do not think that anyone has fully tested the precise views held, and there are many respects in which I think he is wrong. For instance, I think that the vast majority of us in the parliamentary Labour party want to change the electoral system, so that registration can be improved throughout the land and the 3 million people who are currently not on the register can be included.

I merely wished to make a few simple points. If it is certain that we are to have a clause stand part debate, I will reserve some of the other points that I wish to make until then.

--- Later in debate ---

The Minister might be able to assuage my concerns, but our commitment was that we would come forward with an advisory referendum. The clause makes it into an implementing referendum, and we are still very unhappy about elements of this. I shall not rehearse the arguments about the date of the referendum—as the Minister knows, we disagree with that. We disagree with the combination of the polls and we also disagree with the process that is being adopted, whereby amendments are being brought forward. I have great hesitations about this clause standing part of the Bill. It changes the nature of what was promised, so I would be grateful to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Iain Stewart]

I wish to make a very brief contribution on a specific technical matter regarding the counting of the votes under the alternative vote system. That procedure is outlined in subsection (2), under which the candidate with the fewest votes at any stage is eliminated and his or her next preferences are redistributed. I am not clear from my reading of the Bill what the situation would be if two or more candidates were tied in last place with an equal number of votes. Would both candidates be eliminated and their votes redistributed or would some form of lot be held to determine which dropped out and had their votes eliminated first?

[Chris Bryant]

I am sure the Minister will say this in a moment, but provision is made for that in schedule 6, which states that a lot will be drawn.

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who clearly has a greater detailed knowledge of the Bill than me. My question is therefore answered and I shall resume my seat.

[Mr Harper]

Let me deal with the questions that I have been asked. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was quite right to refer to paragraph 7 of schedule 6, which explains about the elimination of candidates. If they are equal number at the bottom and all the preferences are the same, they will be eliminated by lot. If the hon. Gentleman had read a little earlier in that schedule, he would have been able to answer his first question, which was about voters who have made a mark. As page 146 makes clear:

“A ballot paper on which the voter makes any mark which…is clearly intended to indicate a particular preference for a particular candidate, but…is not a number…shall be treated in the same way as if the appropriate number…had been marked instead.”

As long as the voter makes a clear choice, even if it is a smiley face, that will count.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

Amendment made: 172, page 46, line 44, leave out ‘election’ and insert ‘referendum’.—(Mr Harper.)

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 153, page 48, line 29, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 154, page 48, line 32, at end insert—

‘(4A) If the difference between the total number of votes cast in the referendum in the country in favour of the answer “Yes” and the total number of votes cast in the referendum in the country in favour of the answer “No” is fewer than 10,000 or 0.1 per cent. of the total number of votes cast, whichever is the smaller number, the Chief Counting Officer must give a direction to regional counting officers to have all the votes in their region re-counted.’.

[Iain Stewart]

My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) and I have tabled the amendments to seek clarification from the Minister about the provisions for a recount at national level in the event of a tight overall result. Although I am satisfied with the provisions in the Bill for counting in each voting area, or for a recount in each voting area, just as there are provisions at a general election count for a recount in each constituency—[Interruption.]

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Order. Will the Committee please settle down? I am finding it very difficult to hear Mr Stewart.

[Iain Stewart]

Thank you, Mr Evans.

There are adequate provisions in the Bill for a recount mechanism at individual voting area level, just as at a general election count an agent or a candidate may call for a recount if the result is tight or there is some other doubt as to the accuracy of the count. However, if my reading of the Bill is correct, there is no such provision for a recount at national level and I am very concerned about that omission.

Counts in individual voting areas will be carried out in ignorance of what is happening in other counting areas. The Welsh devolution referendum of 1997 offers examples of where the problems may lie. Members may recall that the result of the referendum was very close. Of more than 1.1 million votes cast, the winning majority for the yes campaign was about 7,000 and there were approximately 4,000 spoilt ballot papers, so the result was on a knife edge.

It does not follow, however, that each area voted with the same margin of result; there were huge disparities between the counts in areas throughout Wales. In Rhondda, for example, which the shadow Minister may have some affection for and knowledge of, there was a large yes vote—a 15,000 majority for the yes campaign. Had that been at a general election, no candidate would have questioned it.

[Chris Bryant]

May I correct a mis-impression that is often given by Conservatives about the Rhondda? It was not actually in the Rhondda. The only result the hon. Gentleman can know about was for Rhondda Cynon Taff, which includes the whole county area. His Prime Minister has regularly said that there is a Conservative councillor in the Rhondda. There is not. There is, however, one in Rhondda Cynon Taff.

[Iain Stewart]

I stand corrected. I was using Rhondda as shorthand, in view of the late hour, but that does not undermine my point. The majority was clear in that counting area and had it been a general election no candidate would have challenged the result and called for a recount. However, in an authority close by—Vale of Glamorgan—there was a similar large majority for the no campaign, of 14,000 or thereabouts. There, too, no candidate would have chosen to call for a recount, but when we aggregate the two results, as happened throughout Wales, the result was very close overall. As far as I can tell, the Bill includes no provision for either the yes or no campaign to call for a recount in that eventuality.

Amendment 154 would establish a mechanism for calling a recount, and I invite the Minister to give some clarification as to whether my interpretation of the Bill is correct. Would the proposed mechanism be the most appropriate way to rectify the measure or would the Government care to suggest some other means?

Amendment 153 would provide for the chief counting officer to direct a recount. I am a little concerned about the wording in paragraph 42, which states:

“The Regional Counting Officer or Chief Counting Officer may give a direction under paragraph (3)(a) only if the officer thinks that there is reason to doubt the accuracy of the counting of the votes.”

I am not satisfied with the term “thinks that there is”, and I would be grateful if the Minister clarified the circumstances in which the chief counting officer should be compelled to call for a recount if he believes that there is some doubt about the accuracy of the count.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

Maybe not happy hours, just hours.

Tom Aitchison, the convenor of the interim electoral management board for Scotland, has expressed sensible concerns about holding the UK’s alternative vote referendum on the same day as the Scottish Parliament poll. The proposal is an example of bad practice, and perhaps a slippery slope. In the United States, referendums are often used as wedge issues—some would allege that the Republican strategist Karl Rove uses them for exactly that purpose. We do not want our democracies hijacked by side issues on the day of a main vote that has been expected for years.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

If I recall the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 correctly, the Scottish Parliament has the ability to vary the date of its election. If there is concern about having the polls on the same day, surely it could move the election a few weeks either side.

[Mr MacNeil]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s accent. I have heard about the respect agenda, but I smell cultural imperialism in its worst form.

The UK’s media are pretty poor at dealing with complexities across the UK, and we are concerned that the important issues that will rightly come before the Scottish people will be sidelined by an “X Factor” media dealing with the simpler issue of the referendum. It happens in the US—it is the big ticket election, which affects all viewers, listeners, readers and dare I say media consumers, that counts, regardless of the importance of the issues being debated. However, is daily health and education policy not more important than the type of electoral system that is employed every four to five years? That is not to say that the electoral system is unimportant, but surely it is further down the hierarchy of needs and importance.