Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Julian Lewis Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. He may have missed the contribution made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who reminded us that the first and only time that he graced the Chamber with his presence was on Second Reading on 6 September 2010. He reminds us of Alfred Hitchcock in those classic films in which he has a walk-on part and then comes back at the end for a bow. However, unlike Hitchcock, the right hon. Gentleman brought a posse with him for fear of being lynched—lynched by either that lot, the Liberal Democrats, or that other lot, the Conservative Back Benchers, never mind us lot in the Opposition.
Ironically, the Deputy Prime Minister, who was so keen on this Bill and who directed it, has made no attempt to play a role in it. The real reason, of course, is that he is not the architect. The architect is his chum the Prime Minister, who has just walked out, now that he has seen that his friend is safe.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As the right hon. Gentleman is less than overwhelmed by the prospect of this Bill, would he care to say which Hitchcock film he has most in mind? Is it “Vertigo”, “Sabotage” or “Psycho”?
Sadiq Khan
It is all the films that have a bad ending. Most right hon. and hon. Members will agree—some publicly and others privately—that as things stand, this is a deeply unsatisfactory piece of legislation. It has its genesis in the party political horse-trading that characterised the coalition talks and which is all too evident. I remind the House and those in the other place of what this Bill means unless the other place overturns some of the clauses passed here: a referendum on AV on 5 May 2011, which was not in the manifesto of either of the coalition parties, so there is no mandate for it; a reduction of elected Members in this House from 650 to 600, which was not in the manifesto of either coalition party, so there is no mandate for it; the abolition of public inquiries for boundary commission proposals, which was in neither of the coalition parties’ manifestos, so there is no mandate for it; holding the next general election with new boundaries based on purely mathematical formulae, save for two exceptions, of 600 seats, which again was in neither of the coalition parties’ manifestos, so there is no mandate for it.
We will soon have before us a new Bill that will set in stone the date of the next general election—5 May 2015. Once again, that was in neither of the coalition parties’ manifestos and there is no mandate for it. The Prime Minister and his chum, the Deputy Prime Minister, will sell these reforms in public as democratising measures that herald the dawn of a new politics. Behind closed doors, however, they offer a different rationale, as was revealed by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field). On the day of Second Reading—the last time the Deputy Prime Minister came to this Chamber for this Bill—the hon. Gentleman said that
“the current proposals for AV and the reduction in number of parliamentary constituencies are being promoted by party managers as an expedient way to prevent our principal political opponents from recapturing office.”——[Official Report, 6 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 47.]
I know that the Whips have kept the hon. Gentleman out of the Chamber this evening.
This Bill is the product of a straightforward political bargain. In exchange for a referendum on the alternative vote, which the Conservatives opposed, the Liberal Democrats signed up to a review of constituency boundaries that the Conservatives favoured. As such, it has come to be regarded by the leadership as an unalterable document that must be accepted totally and unquestioningly.
Mrs Laing
I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the acts of the last-but-one Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who packed more members of the Labour party into the House of Lords than any previous Prime Minister had done. And no, I do not think it is fair, but that is not relevant. I am sure that his party will be pleased to hear his criticism of its hero, Mr Blair.
I have had more difficulty in supporting the first part of the Bill, although it is obvious that we have to have a referendum because it is part of the deal done between the two parties in order to form the coalition agreement. We need a coalition Government in order to give the country the stability that we require to deal with the horrific economic circumstances left behind by the last Labour Government.
Dr Julian Lewis
I am sorry to make an unhelpful intervention on my hon. Friend, whom I greatly admire, but my understanding of a deal for a coalition Government is that when a bargain is made, both sides stick to it. That is why I voted for this Bill on Second Reading, despite my objections to it. Subsequently, however, the part of the bargain that induced me to endorse the deal—namely, the fact that we were told that the Liberals would accept the renewal of the Trident strategic nuclear deterrent—was dishonoured. That is why I shall be voting against the Bill on Third Reading.
Mrs Laing
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, but it does not change my arguments about the Bill. I appreciate his point, but I still say that we should have a coalition in order to provide the stability that the country needs in the aftermath of Labour’s economic disasters. It is therefore necessary to have this Bill and to have a referendum.
It is a great pity that the referendum is to be held on the same day as other elections. We have heard many very well put arguments, particularly from Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, about why the referendum should not take place on the same day as their national elections. Nor should a referendum go ahead without a threshold. That could result in a vote on a derisory turnout of some 15% changing our constitution. That is quite simply wrong, but I realise that the Government are not going to accept that argument because, once again, these provisions are in the coalition agreement, by which we are bound.
Oral Answers to Questions
Julian Lewis Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Harper
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his position, as this is the first time that we have crossed swords at the Dispatch Box at Deputy Prime Minister’s questions.
On House of Lords reform, as I said in my previous answer, the Government will create some new peers in due course—the Prime Minister has made that clear—in the same way that the previous Government did. Since the election, 29 Labour peers have been created, in the resignation honours list of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), but only 27 coalition peers. The Government have no plans to pack the upper House; the Government do not have a majority in the other place; we will take our legislation through there by arguing the merits of the case and hoping to persuade a majority.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Given that most people would react with horror at the prospect of doubling the number of elected MPs, why does my hon. Friend think so many on both sides of the House are fanatically in favour of turning the upper House into a carbon copy of this Chamber, which might either rubber-stamp or oppose its findings, while excluding the experts who do such a good job in revising our legislation?
Mr Harper
I know my hon. Friend’s views on this subject, but he is simply not right. One issue that the cross-party Committee is thinking about very carefully is exactly how to ensure that the reformed second Chamber is not a carbon copy of this place—that would clearly not be sensible. Although we think that Members should be elected, we will look at a range of ways of ensuring that the House of Lords can do its job properly as a revising Chamber, without duplicating the role of this House, which will remain the primary House of Parliament.
Strategic Defence and Security Review
Julian Lewis Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I know that the hon. Gentleman has a strong constituency interest in this matter. I can tell him that overall the cost will be lower—this was a value-for-money exercise. We are driving costs out of the programme, and overall we believe that it will be less expensive. Further good news is that the Astute class submarines are going ahead. Obviously he will have a tortured time ahead as he considers the fact that this Prime Minister and Government support the Trident replacement when his own party is going a bit soft on it.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has it in his power to secure the future of the nuclear deterrent until 2055 by holding the vital vote and making the main gate contract decisions in this Parliament, not the next one. He could do that at no extra cost, even if he wishes to delay the introduction of the system. Will he explain his reason for delaying this vital vote into the next Parliament, other than to make our ultimate deterrent a political gambling chip to satisfy the Liberal Democrats?
The Prime Minister
I worked with my hon. Friend for many, many years, and I know that he takes an extremely close and professional interest in this matter. I remember he did it when there was not a single supporter of nuclear deterrence on the Labour Benches. He did a great service to the country. However, I would make two points to him: first, the military advice is that we need to go through the main gate in 2016, not earlier. I would also like to make another, slightly more frivolous point: I am not as lacking in confidence as he is that there will be plenty of supporters of Britain’s strong and independent nuclear deterrent in the next Parliament.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Julian Lewis Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jenkin
I am grateful for the correction. My mistake reflects a gross lack of experience in this place, for which I apologise. I will vote on my amendments if I get the opportunity, but I will also support the amendment that has just been moved in the name of the nationalists.
I appreciate that, following the heated discussion about this issue during the summer, we are less likely to win this vote. Early-day motion 613 attracted a large number of signatures, including those of some 40 or 45 Conservative Members, some of whom have been made Parliamentary Private Secretaries, with one being given the deputy chairmanship of the Conservative party. Other promises have no doubt been made and career-ending threats have certainly been delivered. I wonder what would happen to the date of this referendum if there was a free vote, but that is clearly not going to happen.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I express extreme disappointment that, as one of the people who signed the early-day motion, no offers have been made to me whatsoever?
Mr Jenkin
My hon. Friend should call that freedom. It is surprising that this has turned out to be a matter of such extreme importance to the coalition. The question is not whether the yes or no campaign will do better on this or that date—some people profess to know, but I confess that I do not—but why the Government think it is in the national interest or, dare I say it, in their interest to have the referendum on that particular date, and why it is so important to this Government. The only explanation that we have been given so far relates to money, but, considering the scale of the national deficit, I regard £30 million as more of an excuse than a reason. It is rather like the schoolboy whose excuse that he was late for school because he missed the bus does not exactly explain why he missed the bus.
There might be a perceived advantage for the yes campaign in having an early date before the Government incur too much disapproval from voters in relation to the difficult decisions that have to be made about the deficit. The yes campaign might perceive an advantage from a higher turnout, although the NO2AV campaign disputes that. The yes campaign might perceive an advantage in confusion and ignorance, because there is bound to be more confusion and ignorance about the substance of the issue, which I will address later in my remarks, if the polls are combined.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the serious contributions made in the first few speeches. Even if things do not turn out how those hon. Members would like this evening, I am sure that colleagues in the other place will read their speeches with great interest when they come to decide on the future of this Bill.
I relish my new role and the prospect of working with the coalition Government and, in particular, with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, both of whom are clearly committed to an agenda of reforming the Government’s political programme and strengthening our democracy. However, I am disappointed that the Deputy Prime Minister is not here. I appreciate that he has other important things to do, but it is ironic—this draws on a point made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles)—that the biggest proponent and advocate of the alternative vote is not here to talk about it.
The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) is right that the burden should be on those of us who want AV to prove the case to the British people, first, that they should be motivated sufficiently to turn out on a separate date and vote on AV and, secondly, that they should vote yes in the referendum. I am disappointed, therefore, that the Deputy Prime Minister is not here. He is the great reformer, and his not being here sends, I am afraid, all the wrong messages to those of us who want to join him in changing how we vote in the House of Commons.
Dr Julian Lewis
Those of us who do not want AV under any circumstances are actually rather heartened by the fact that, apart from Liberal Democrat Front-Bench Members, who perhaps have to be here, there are only two Liberal Democrat Members—albeit very distinguished ones—favouring this stage of the debate with their presence.
Sadiq Khan
The hon. Gentleman knows all about conspiracy theories, and there will be people around the country with their own conspiracy theories about why so few Liberal Democrat Members are here.
The Bill has some positive aspects. In particular, some of us think that the proposals for a referendum on the voting system are good ones, but unfortunately we have concerns, as we will discuss, that other aspects of the Bill will do much to undermine, rather than enhance, British democracy. I am afraid that those aspects appear to be the product of narrow party interests, and given how the Bill has been drafted, there is a danger that those of us who would otherwise have supported it, and who ordinarily would have been allies of those on the coalition Front Bench and the Deputy Prime Minister will be forced to oppose it. The Committee has the opportunity to iron out those flaws so that the legislation can be made to support the high ideals of constitutional reform in the national interest, to which the coalition aspired only five months ago.
The starting point for today’s debate is clause 1, which, as was explained by the previous two speakers, stipulates that a referendum on moving to the alternative vote system for parliamentary elections “must” be held on 5 May 2011. As has been said by the chuntering hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), the Committee will know that only one party—the Labour party—went into the last election with a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on moving to AV. That commitment was made after an attempt by the then Labour Government to legislate for such a referendum earlier this year through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Unfortunately, however, those provisions were blocked by Conservative peers in the unelected House of Lords—so the conspiracy theory about why the Deputy Prime Minister is not here will continue. Furthermore, I am happy to note—and put the record right—that clauses providing for a referendum had previously been passed by a substantial majority thanks, in part, to the support of Liberal Democrat Members, one or two of whom have bothered to be here today while we discuss clause 1 of this great reforming Deputy Prime Minister’s Bill.
It is right to give the people a choice between the first-past-the-post and the alternative vote systems. AV is, like first past the post, a majoritarian system that maintains the single Member constituency link. However, it offers voters the ability to express a greater range of preferences than does first past the post, and that element has, arguably, become more salient in recent years, with the resurgence of multi-party politics in the late 20th century. AV is also more likely to secure the return of Members of Parliament with the preferences of more than 50% of electors. However, the strength of that likelihood varies depending on the form of AV used. It should be noted—I am sure that colleagues are aware of this—that the system proposed in the Bill allowing voters to express as many or as few preferences as they like would not guarantee the return of every Member with the preferences of more than 50% of electors. None the less, the voluntary model of AV on offer here could increase the legitimacy of the electoral process.
Dr Julian Lewis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I wonder whether he noticed the curious item in yesterday’s The Times, which suggested that certain Conservative Members were no longer going to support amendments such as his, because calculations had been done by the chief executive of the NO2AV campaign that having the referendum on the same day might actually assist the no vote. I assure whoever made those calculations that I would be just as determined to vote against having the referendum on the same day if I believed that it would advantage the no campaign as I would if I thought that it would advantage the yes campaign.
Mr Leigh
Exactly.
There was a meeting yesterday—perhaps I am giving away what was discussed in a private meeting, but so what, as it adds interest to the debate—and someone from the no campaign came along and said, “Well, we have done all our calculations and we think that we are now perhaps more likely to win if the referendum is on the same day because the C2 vote is likely to be in our favour”—but who cares? Stuff these sorts of arguments. When we pressed this man, he was not able to adduce any firm evidence one way or the other. The fact is that nobody knows whether their side of the argument is more likely to win on 5 May or 2 June or whatever.
Surely what is important is that the arguments around AV are complex. I know that you would immediately rule me out of order, Mr Hood, if I started rehearsing all the arguments in favour of or against AV. I am sure that the Committee accepts, however, that at first sight the issue looks quite easy. It might be said, “Well, we have this first-past-the-post system, which is clearly not proportional and seems unfair to one party, the Liberal party, which gets many more votes nationally than can be justified by the number of seats it gets in this House, so we should have a fairer system.” At first sight, then, someone might think, “Well, I am a progressive and fair person”—actually, the Committee might not agree that I am a progressive and fair person, but I can be if I try, as I do occasionally, to behave myself—“and should accept the change.” Looking at the issue in more detail, however, it gets more difficult.
A document from the Library details how an individual election might pan out, which might lead us all to start scratching our heads. Do we all know that the Government’s favoured option is for “optional preferential voting”? How many members of the public have got their heads around “optional preferential voting”? Indeed, how many Members in their places in Committee now—apart from the lone Liberal or couple of Liberals, whom we know to be anoraks—understand it? We all know, of course, that the optional preferential voting system is an AV system that does not require the voter to give preferences for every candidate, but there are other AV systems, and those arguments have to be teased out. Would it be fairer to force people to vote for every candidate? Would it be fairer to have the system used in the London mayoral elections, where one or two candidates are voted for? Or should we vote for the system that the Government are proposing? As we can start to see, the issues are complicated. Should we not therefore have a chance to tease out these issues over three or four weeks, given that we are changing the entire way of voting for the House of Commons?
Mr Leigh
Or hopefully not changing it, as my hon. Friend has said.
It does not necessarily help the argument to question what happens in Australia, Finland or the USA. It is what happens here that is important, because we care about this place and we want to create our own system, which we want to be discussed and understood by the public. We also want to make a judgment that will be considered fair.
Naomi Long
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I would go further: the problem is not just events on the day; accounting for expenditure on each of the three elections, and managing to keep that expenditure separate enough to satisfy electoral rules, will prove challenging during the campaign.
I want to reiterate a point that has been raised about the opportunity for cross-party co-operation. Those who support electoral reform may want to form a yes campaign, and those who are opposed may want to form a no campaign. Their ability to do so is significantly inhibited if the local government and Assembly elections are on the same day as the referendum, because people will be in full party election mode in the run-up to the date. The effectiveness of any yes or no campaign in areas where there are other elections taking place at the same time will be significantly diminished.
I support the moves being made to reform the electoral system, but the date should be reconsidered. I do not believe that 5 May is an appropriate date. I do not believe that there was significant consultation with regional Administrations about how having the referendum on that day would impact on their area. The issue should be thought through again to ensure that the fullest, frankest and most open debate can take place, and to ensure that when the electorate come to the ballot box, they are fully informed of why they are there.
Dr Julian Lewis
As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) made clear, it is a very serious step to vote against the leadership of one’s party for the first time. It will not come as a surprise to those in the Whips Office to hear that I shall be doing that today, because I informed them in advance that that was the decision that I reached. In fairness to them, with their typical liberality, they have not sought to put any pressure on me to dissuade me. [Interruption.] They genuinely have not.
What I really regret is that I shall be voting in such a way when the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), is at the Dispatch Box. He smiled as he heard me mention his name. He, at least, is aware that I have had the pleasure of attending the weddings of only two hon. Members. One was Mr Speaker’s and the other was my hon. Friend’s, even before he was elected to this House. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will reach every bit as eminent a position as Mr Speaker, but I fear that it will not be on the strength of the arguments that we will hear from him today.
The shadow Secretary of State said from the Dispatch Box that he was puzzled to learn that the Government were going for the option of holding the referendum on an important constitutional issue on the same day as party political elections. I am glad to see him re-entering the Chamber in time for me to assist him by answering the question that he put. There is a simple answer: it is because the Liberal Democrats insist on it. The Conservative party would not have dreamt of putting forward this ghastly proposal to substitute the alternative vote for first past the post in any other circumstance, and it is being jerked about by its coalition partner.
Mr Davidson
What the hon. Gentleman has just said is extremely important—if it is correct. He is saying that the AV referendum and the elections are being held on the same day at the behest of the Liberal Democrats. That is immensely helpful. It would be helpful to the Committee if he would make clear what evidence he has that the referendum is to be held on the same day as the elections solely at the insistence of the forces of darkness.
Dr Lewis
I have very good circumstantial evidence. If it were left to the Conservatives, they would not wish this issue to be on the agenda at all; it is part of the price for the formation of the coalition Government. Also, once it became clear that this bad idea of a coincidence of dates was to be implemented, it was said time and again in the press without contradiction—in a way, the hon. Gentleman anticipates the remainder of my speech—that the reason was to improve the possibility of a yes vote. As the Conservatives, from the leader of our party down, have been explicit that we want a no vote, it is hardly likely that they, albeit reluctantly putting forward the idea for a referendum in the first place for the sake of the coalition, would insist on holding it on the same date for the reason that it was likely to get the result that they apparently do not want. I say “apparently” because naturally I believe implicitly everything that the leadership of my party tells me, and therefore I am sure that it does not want us to change the voting system.
Mr Davidson
That was a yes, then. The elections and the referendum are being held on the same day solely at the insistence of the Liberal Democrats.
Dr Lewis
The hon. Gentleman knows that I much admire his tenacity, his persistence and especially his devotion to the aircraft carriers, which I share, but I have to tell him that, for some strange reason, the leader of the Liberal Democrats does not tend to take me into his confidence when it comes to his reasons on issues of this sort. All I have been able to give the hon. Gentleman is my judgment of the situation as I see it. It seems to me that the only logical explanation for insisting on the coincidence of dates is that it is believed that the fact that major elections will be going on in parts of the country where people are used to electoral systems other than first past the post makes it more likely that there will be a higher turnout in those areas and the people there will be more amenable to voting yes to a change in the electoral system. I am glad to see a number of hon. Members indicating their assent.
Thomas Docherty
There has been some speculation as to the whereabouts of the Deputy Prime Minister. He was spotted just a few moments ago walking past the Chamber. We can but hope that he will shortly join us to take part in this debate.
Dr Lewis
I would not bet the farm on it. One of the depressing aspects of the debate, being a touch more serious for a moment, is that we are debating the proposal only because it is a Lib Dem self-interested obsession. Liberal Democrat Members have not even had the guts to come here in any significant numbers to speak up for those policies on which they insist. They are the originators of this mischief, and they are now doing the Cheshire cat act and letting my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary have the sticky end of the wicket trying to defend the indefensible.
Sadiq Khan
Some of us are advocates of AV and would campaign for a yes vote. Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate how let down we feel that the actions of the Deputy Prime Minister make it difficult for us to coalesce a campaign and get support for a yes vote, because on the day of the referendum candidates will be standing on the Liberal Democrat ticket? That will make it very difficult for us to canvass in the days and weeks preceding the elections. It pains me to say this, because I was looking forward to working with the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) on other issues, but our ability to do so has been hindered by the way in which the Bill has been drafted and the proceedings on it have been conducted.
Dr Lewis
I shall give a slightly pragmatic answer. Frankly, as long as hon. Members on both sides of the House work for whatever reason one way or another to defeat such an unwelcome change in our electoral system, I for one shall be extremely happy.
Liberal Democrats are not known for their consistency, and that was well illustrated by the shadow Secretary of State when he revealed something that I did not know: that the Deputy Prime Minister previously opposed in principle holding a referendum on the same day as a general election. At least there would be some sort of level playing field if a referendum were on the same day as a general election. What is so iniquitous about this proposal is that all sorts of elections will be held on the same day in different parts of the country using different systems; and in some parts of the country no elections will be held at all. That is unfair and discreditable. I believe that the idea of the differential turnout was part and parcel of the scheme for proposing the coincidence of dates because it was believed that it would help achieve a yes vote.
We had a lively exchange earlier about whether the coincidence of dates would help the yes vote or the no vote, but the most important thing is not that it might help one side or the other. The important thing is that, if an issue is vital enough to warrant a referendum, it is essential that that referendum should not be adulterated by party political cross-cutting issues on the same day.
One reason why political coalitions in peacetime generally do not have good reputations is their propensity to do dodgy deals behind closed doors. This proposal is the outcome of such a deal. It is intellectually and morally indefensible. It will not be a pleasure to vote for the first time today against my party leadership on an issue of principle. I hope that I will not be wasting my time and that people on the Government Benches will find it in their hearts to do a good deed today and put maximum pressure on the Government to abandon a thoroughly dishonourable bit of political fixing. I wish I could think of some other words to describe it, but I cannot. This is what happens when parties get together and start tinkering with the rules of the game. We may play on different sides in the game, but we ought to respect the rules. The proposal to hold the referendum on the same day as differential party political elections is an attempt to bend the rules, and we should have no part of it.
Nick Boles
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady’s point. All I say to her is that it should be possible to iron out those issues. Why different forms of identification are necessary for different elections is beyond me. I was in the Select Committee when we interviewed the head of the Electoral Commission, and she confirmed that while those are challenges, they are manageable challenges and that there is therefore no objection.
Dr Julian Lewis
My hon. Friend is not only charming, but courteous in giving way so graciously. May I ask him to address the specific objections put forward in the debate, not least one that is completely unaffected by his point about whether people make up their minds quickly or whether they need a long period of time to decide on these issues? Will he address the matter of differential turnout caused by different types of elections being held or not held on the same day?
Even if I accepted my hon. Friend’ point that people will make up their minds in exactly the same way with a long period of consultation or a short period of consultation, the fact is that what matters is whether they will go to the polls and cast their votes. By holding the referendum on the day when there are important elections in some parts of the country, less important elections in others and no elections in still others, we will get differential, unfair and skewed results.
Nick Boles
I am surprised that my hon. Friend has made that argument, because he is a doughty defender of freedom and democratic rights. Everybody in this country—in all the countries that make up this country— will have an identical democratic right to cast their vote in the referendum or not. We should not judge whether they want to or whether the campaigns will motivate them to. We already have differential turnout across general elections. So long as people have an identical right, it is all that matters.
I have detained hon. Members for far too long—
Mr Harper
Off the top of my head, no, I cannot, but I do not see that that point is at all valid. I do not see that there is any problem with voters being able to make the decisions sensibly. My hon. Friend underrates those whom we ask to vote for us. His point is partly answered if we consider this year’s general election. There was a combination of a general election and local elections in some parts of the United Kingdom, but not everywhere. Some voters voted in more than one election, and some did not. I do not think that that had an impact on the results of either the local elections or the general election. If Members think that the situation meant that the results were illegitimate, that rather impacts on the results of those of us who are Members of this House.
Dr Julian Lewis
Is my hon. Friend seriously suggesting that there will be no difference in turnout in different parts of the country, when there are Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and other comparable elections going on in some parts, local elections of some form going on in others, and no elections going on at all in others? The fact is that some people will vote in the referendum if they are at the poll, but might not have gone to the poll if it were not for those other elections. We need a level playing field to get a representative result.
Mr Harper
I simply do not accept my hon. Friend’s argument. If we look at the general election this year and turnouts across the country, we see that there were some constituencies where the turnout percentage was in the 70s or perhaps even in the 80s, and constituencies where it was in the 50s. Every voter had the same opportunity to vote, but turnout across the country varied. That will inevitably be the case in the referendum, and I do not think that there is anything sinister in that at all.
One of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), which I am glad to be able to address—that is why I did not want to keep taking interventions from him—was about the mechanics of how the elections were to be run. In evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee, Tom Aitchison, the convener of the Interim Electoral Management Board for Scotland—one of the people who runs the elections—made it clear that the electoral professionals represented by his board would work to ensure that the poll was conducted in accordance with whatever the House decides. He asked that the referendum in Scotland
“be conducted on Scottish Parliamentary Boundaries”
to make sure that there was
“an efficient, clear and cost effective process”,
and said that
“the relevant Order should be amended to allow the Scottish Parliamentary elections to be formally combined with the referendum.”
He added:
“It is our current understanding that both of these proposals have been adopted”.
He is quite right, and we have listened. On 25 October, when we debate how the elections will be combined, it will be clear that we have looked at the administrative challenges and sought to make sure that the combined elections on 5 May can be conducted in the most sensible way possible.
Mr Harper
The Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee made a number of points. I think that I dealt with some of them in interventions. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford made a speech with good humour. I think he was underplaying his reputation when he said that 90% of constituents did not know who he was. I am sure that if that was true and if more of them knew who he was, he would get an even more impressive result.
The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) made some serious points about the operational issues in Northern Ireland. The franchise for Northern Ireland Assembly elections and for local elections is the same. The referendum would be conducted on the Westminster franchise. So there would be two franchises operating, but that would be the same position as when local elections are combined with a general election.
As for the ID requirements, the legislation will provide that the requirements for the referendum and the Assembly elections will be the same. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends that the inconsistencies between ID requirements for voters in the Assembly and local elections will be dealt with before the polls next year.
The final point that I want to make, I am sure hon. Members will be pleased to know, is in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who talked about consultation. On Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that we had not introduced the provisions on combination in the Bill because we wanted to take the time through the summer to work with the Electoral Commission, others in government in the territorial offices and with electoral administrators across the United Kingdom. I have written today to members of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, Opposition spokesmen and others with an interest in the Bill, including Members who spoke on Second Reading or who have tabled amendments, and leaders of parties represented in the devolved Parliament and Assemblies, to set out when we propose to table those amendments and debate them in the House, and to give them an idea of some of the provisions. I hope that that is helpful—indeed, it was intended to be so. In conclusion, I urge right hon. and hon. Members to resist any amendments that are pressed to a Division, and I urge hon. Members thinking of pressing their amendments not to do so.
Individual Electoral Registration
Julian Lewis Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Harper
I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. The last boundary review that came into place for the recent general election was done using the existing electoral registers, and at least some people not on them were eligible to vote. I have already responded to that point. I am very pleased to work with colleagues on both sides of the House to ensure that more people who are eligible to vote are on the register. I set that out in my statement and I made it clear that the Government are as interested in the completeness of the register as they are in ensuring its accuracy.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My hon. Friend is taking steps that go a considerable way towards restoring integrity to individual voting, but may I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), that, given that we value individual booths for privacy at the polling station, the over-extension of postal voting destroys that degree of privacy, at least within households? The Minister should look at this question again. People should have postal votes because they need them, not just on demand.
Mr Harper
I hear what my hon. Friend—and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie)—says, and I will think further on it. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) will welcome the announcement in my statement that although we are going to leave people on the register who have not individually registered ahead of the general election, those who want to exercise a postal or proxy vote—the areas of greatest concern—will have had to register individually, ensuring an extra safeguard.
G8 and G20 Summits
Julian Lewis Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
There is a difference between what Canada has decided and what President Obama is undertaking. Canada has set a firm deadline for withdrawing all its troops from combat and other operations, and that date is firmly set in stone. President Obama has spoke about a review towards the end of this year and, from July 2011, he hopes to be drawing down the surge in troops that has taken place this year. That is very different from what the Canadians are discussing. We are part of that US surge. We surged our troop numbers, as the US did—albeit by less, but we still have around 10,000 in Helmand. We, too, should be looking at progress at the end of the year, and at that July 2011 date. However, I would rather give the House and the people of this country the certain knowledge that we are not going to be there in five years’ time in the role that we are now. Between now and then, however, let us try to deliver on the ground as best we can, and train up the Afghan national army and the police in order to deliver that security and bring our troops home. And let us do it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) suggested, on the basis of the facts on the ground.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I know that the Prime Minister wants the existing strategy to be given more time to succeed, but will he accept that, if it shows little sign of progress in the next few months, or even the next year or so, there should be an alternative to recommending total withdrawal? Total withdrawal would take us back to square one, and the existing strategy would mean our continuing to take excessive casualties. There has to be, and there could be, a middle way, and I hope that he will consider that if he sees that the present strategy is not moving in the direction that he would like to see.
The Prime Minister
I know that my hon. Friend is working hard on the middle way option, and that he is going to do further work on it. Of course I shall look carefully at what he produces. I would say to him that the surge in troop numbers has made a difference on the ground. In the parts of Afghanistan where previously it was impossible to step outside a military base, it is now possible to walk around the towns and visit the markets. I went to a training college, the last time I was in Helmand. The previous time, I went to a wheat seed distribution centre. Both times, I was able to have some freedom of movement. So there is some progress, and I think that this is the right strategy. We should use all that we have, this year, to give it every chance of success.
Oral Answers to Questions
Julian Lewis Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Of course, our action on national insurance contributions has saved the NHS money, which would not be available under a Labour Government. The point I would make is that that benefits Scotland. The fact that we are protecting the NHS and NHS spending means that money will be available in Scotland as well. The shadow Health Secretary has said that health should not be protected, and that the NHS should be cut. That is now, take note, the official position. The Leader of the Opposition is nodding—cutting the NHS is now official Labour policy.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Q13. What the military purpose is of routine foot and vehicle patrols in Afghanistan.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are conducting a counter-insurgency operation in Afghanistan. He asked specifically about the military purpose of routine foot and vehicle patrols in Afghanistan. If we are going to win the counter-insurgency and succeed in what is called “war amongst the people”, we have to be among them, protecting them from the insurgents. That is how we are going to create a more stable and peaceful Afghanistan, from which we will be able to return, leaving the Afghan forces in control.
Dr Lewis
Does the Prime Minister accept that there are other ways of fighting counter-insurgencies that do not involve sending out uniformed personnel along predictable routes, day after day, to be sniped at and blown up? Will he request that his military advisers focus on long-term strategies that could achieve our strategic aims without having to pay such an unnecessarily high price?
The Prime Minister
I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in these matters, and I have arranged for him to meet senior officials and military advisers, so that he can explore his ideas with them. All that I would say is that the team that President Obama has put in place, and the team that we have in place of military and civilian leaders, have brought great impetus to the campaign. It is difficult to see, if we are trying to fight a counter-insurgency, how we can do so without having a number of active patrols to protect the people from the insurgents.
Saville Inquiry
Julian Lewis Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman spoke with great power and great emotion on behalf of his constituents and his city, and I would like to pay tribute to the way in which he did that, and to the service that he has given to them. He spoke about the healing of history, and I hope and believe that he will be right. I know that he represents many of the families who lost loved ones that day, and he has always fought for them in a way that is honourable and right, and has always, in spite of all the difficulties, stood up for the peace process and for peaceful means.
To answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions, he is right that the Widgery report is now fully superseded by the Saville report; this is the report with the facts, the details and the full explanation of what happened, and it should be accepted as such. In terms of the people who were killed on that day, they were innocent of anything that justified them being shot; that is quite clear from the report. Let me read it again:
“none of the casualties was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury, or indeed was doing anything else that could on any view justify their shooting.”
That is what Saville has found. I hope that that is some comfort to the families, and to the people in Londonderry who have suffered for so many years over the issue, and that, as the hon. Gentleman says, we can now draw a line, look to the future and build Northern Ireland as a prosperous part of the United Kingdom.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I congratulate not only the Prime Minister but the Leader of the Opposition on their opening statements today, which, I have to say, were two of the most statesmanlike contributions I have heard on any subject in more than 13 years in this House?
On the question of possible prosecutions, may I draw to the House’s attention one fact? There was a sniper on the IRA side who killed something like two dozen British soldiers, but who was arrested only a relatively short time before the Good Friday agreement was concluded. As a result of that man’s conviction, he received a very long sentence, but served only a very short sentence. Should it not be borne in mind that that man, after all he did, is now out on the streets, a free man, before anybody starts calling for prosecutions of people, even though they did very wrong things a very long time ago?
The Prime Minister
May I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the statements by me and the Leader of the Opposition? I know that he cares deeply about this issue, too. What I would say to him about the very strong point that he makes is that the Good Friday agreement included clauses that were incredibly painful for people on all sides to cope with. The idea that someone who had murdered—and, as my hon. Friend said, murdered perhaps more than once—would serve only two years in prison was incredibly painful for people to understand, but these things had to be done to try to end the long-running conflict and to bring people to pursue their goals by peaceful means. That is what the peace process is about.
In terms of making a contrast between that and what soldiers have done, I am very clear that we should not try to draw an equivalence between what terrorists have done and what soldiers have done, because soldiers are operating under the law—operating for a Government. We should not draw equivalence. On the issue of prosecutions, I can only repeat what I said to the Leader of the Opposition, and I also make the point that it is important that I do not say anything today that would prejudice either a criminal prosecution or, indeed, a civil action, were one to be brought.
Let me end, again, on the point about the painful decisions that had to be made in the peace process. We all, particularly on the Conservative side of the House, know people who have been affected. The first person I ever wrote a speech for was Ian Gow, who was murdered by the IRA. It is incredibly painful and difficult for people to put behind them what happened in the past, but we have to if we are to make the peace process work.
Afghanistan
Julian Lewis Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Let me try to find some common cause with the hon. Gentleman. I agree with him to this extent: we will not solve this problem by military means alone. There should be a political process, a process for the Taliban to lay down their arms and rejoin Afghan society and, yes, a process led by the Afghan Government of engaging with the Taliban. However, there have to be some red lines. There has to be an acceptance of the Afghan constitution, an acceptance that everything must be done by peaceful means and, above all, the severing of any link with al-Qaeda. So a political process, yes, but let us not pretend that that will come if we walk away militarily.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister accept that al-Qaeda, as an international terrorist organisation, if it is suppressed in Afghanistan and Pakistan will begin to operate from any one or more of half a dozen other potential harbouring states? Given that it is out of the question that we could ever try to tackle that problem in the extremely costly way that we have tackled Afghanistan, will he undertake to view with an open mind the sovereign base bridgehead solution, which I hope to have an opportunity to discuss with him presently?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I know that he has considerable expertise in this area. He is right to say that there are other parts of the world where al-Qaeda is, regrettably, quite strongly established, including Yemen and Somalia, but it seems to me that that does not negate the need to do what is possible to deliver a basic level of security in Afghanistan, so that at least that country cannot once again become home to al-Qaeda. Doing that at the same time as working with the Pakistan Government can actually help to stabilise a region from which huge amounts of terrorism have come. In terms of the sovereign base idea, I am happy to look at it, and to discuss my hon. Friend’s ideas with him, but I think that a military surge that is part of a counter-insurgency must be given time to work.
Constitution and Home Affairs
Julian Lewis Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Straw
I will make a little more progress before giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
For seven years after the 1999 change, the absence of any clear consensus blocked further reform. It will be recalled that in early 2003, this House voted against every single one of seven alternative propositions put before it, ranging from an all-appointed to an all-elected House of Lords. I took over responsibility for Lords reform, in that time-honoured passage from Foreign Secretary to Leader of the House, and duly established a cross-party group. Its key conclusions, which worked very well, were set out in a February 2007 Green Paper.
Thankfully, in March 2007 this House voted emphatically in favour of two consistent propositions—an 80% or 100% elected House of Lords—and against all other choices. That proposition for a wholly or mainly elected House has been the foundation for progress since. The cross-party group re-met for 15 months and did a great deal of detailed work on how an elected Lords might operate, and its conclusions were contained in the July 2008 White Paper.
At the most recent general election—for the first time—all three parties were clearly committed to action to secure an elected House of Lords. Further work to ensure that should be straightforward: a great deal has already been done, including, as the Deputy Prime Minister knows, the drafting of many of the key clauses to form the central part of any Bill. I pledge that my party will work constructively on that with him and his Administration, and with luck, we may be able to mark the centenary of the first Parliament Act with legislation finally to meet its long-term goal.
The proposal for a referendum on voting reform is another long-running issue in British politics. It took the expenses scandal for broad agreement to emerge that at the very least the British people should be given the opportunity to decide whether they wish to continue with the existing first-past-the-post system or to move to the alternative vote system. Legislation for an AV referendum was agreed earlier this year by the House by a very substantial majority of 365 to 187. That would have become law by the general election but for the refusal of the Conservative party to allow it to go through in the so-called wash-up. I am glad that the rather spurious objections that the Conservatives raised then have now dissolved. We shall, of course, support clauses on AV if they are put before the House in a similar form to last time.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in the course of the competitive negotiations with the Liberal Democrats as to which side was going to form a Government, his party offered the Liberal Democrats a deal whereby AV would be rammed through this House without a referendum?
Mr Straw
The answer is no. I would also say to the hon. Gentleman that a very significant proportion of Labour Members, including myself, would never have accepted such a proposition had it been put forward—let us be absolutely clear about that.
We support proposals for recall, which we proposed before the election, although the detail will have to be carefully thought through.
Many of the other aspects set out in the coalition agreement are non-controversial. I am glad to see the Administration support the proposals of the Wright Committee, and I hope that we will see good progress made on them. I say parenthetically, on a subject that concerned me greatly when I was in government, that I continue to be concerned about how we conduct our Report and Committee stages on the Floor of the House.
There is another unsatisfactory matter, and I hope that the Leader of the House will consider it. Since there is likely to be some element of timetabling, or even if there is not, we need better order when the House is considering legislation clause by clause, not least by allowing the Chair a discretion to set time limits on speeches. One of the most important functions discharged by this House on the Floor of the House is the consideration of legislation. The old system before 1997 led to great frustration, as did the system post-1997. What we have not yet got right is adequate provision to ensure that Back Benchers especially can take part constructively in debates without those debates being undermined either by too hasty Government timetables or, frankly, by some Back Benchers hogging the whole of the time by filibustering.
The Deputy Prime Minister
The coalition agreement, which binds the Government as a whole, is very clear that we want to see fixed-term Parliaments. We will table legislation for a fixed-term Parliament. We will table a motion before the legislation is introduced to make sure that the political commitment to a fixed-term Parliament is made completely clear. There is consensus across the whole House on the virtues of fixed-term Parliaments. This is another issue on which the hon. Gentleman and so many others on the Opposition Benches, having failed to introduce this change for the past 13 years, are coming up with a series of synthetic reasons why they should oppose something that they themselves used to propose.
We also want—[Interruption.] I shall make progress. We want people to be able to initiate debates here in the Commons through public petitions, we want a new public reading stage for Bills, we want people to be able to instigate local referendums on issues that matter to their neighbourhoods, and we want people to decide directly if they want to change the system by which they elect their MPs, which is why there will be a referendum on the alternative vote. I will announce the date of that referendum in due course.
Electoral reform should, the Government believe, also include—
Dr Julian Lewis
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for giving way. He will have heard the answer that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) gave when I asked him whether it had been the case that the outgoing Labour Prime Minister had offered, during the coalition negotiations, to ram through the alternative vote without a referendum. I am not giving away any trade secrets when I say that Conservative MPs were told that that was the case. The Deputy Prime Minister is in a position to know. Were the Liberal Democrats offered by the Labour party the alternative vote without a referendum? Can he set the matter to rest?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The answer is no. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) was right. That was not offered by the Labour party in those discussions. The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) is right—I should know whether it was offered or not.