Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and David Heath

Monday 3rd November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I was about to come on to that. The interesting thing is that even though the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) argued last week that recall would be used on very few occasions, he supports amendment 38 because it would be so difficult for everyone to go to one place.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly has said, if there are more than the maximum of four, there needs to be some regulation or control over the number of places, otherwise a different situation may arise. I remember one council in the north-east where a certain person was in control of the location of polling stations, and it seemed as though there was one on every street corner in her ward. The hon. Member for North East Somerset told us that the amendment is designed to increase democratic turnout, but as in such a case, putting one on every street corner could be used to encourage people to oppose an MP.

I sympathise with the view that a maximum of four places is too prescriptive, but there must be some regulation or control for such places, otherwise a petition officer might be put under undue political pressure locally to have dozens and dozens of sites to make it as easy as possible for people to secure a recall. The Government need to change the provision, but they also need to add some guidance or regulations alongside it, because otherwise there will be abuses of the system. Having large numbers of these places might be designed to encourage people to turn out deliberately to undermine and remove the Member of Parliament not for any democratic reason, but for political reasons.

[Mr Heath]

I want to make a few observations on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), and on some of the clauses in this group.

My first observation relates to the number of places at which people can sign the petition. It seems to me completely impossible to equate the notion of fair access across the country with setting a maximum of four places for constituents such as mine, as my hon. Friend correctly said. It takes me about an hour and a quarter to drive from one end of my constituency to the other. Were there very few places, that would effectively disfranchise those who wish to attend a place of signing in person from being able to do so. Obviously, such an issue does not apply in urban or suburban constituencies, but it certainly does in the wide open spaces of rural constituencies, some of which are represented in the Chamber this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I do think that, because I have had the great pleasure, during nearly 18 years in this House, of serving on innumerable statutory instrument Committees and considering the wording of ballot papers and the like through statutory regulation. That seems to me the much more appropriate way to get it right. Such an approach might also deal with the specific issue about the Welsh language. I seem to recall, although I might be wrong, that we have on occasion examined the Welsh language version of what appears on a ballot paper as well, and it is prescribed; it is not left to someone to translate it as they choose. So the hon. Gentleman rightly says that the Government would be well advised to remove the prescription in this clause and say, “The Minister may, by regulation, prescribe the words that will appear on the petition signing sheets.” That will allow the Government to go away, talk to the Electoral Commission, get the words right and come back with a regulation that provides for that.

The last point I wish to make relates to postal and proxy votes, about which the hon. Member for North Down makes an incredibly important point. I cannot see why the regulations on applying for a postal or proxy vote, and for the execution of such a vote in an election, should be any different from those used for the petition. These things are equally important to our electoral and democratic process, so I would like to think that whatever applies to one will apply to the other, to ensure that we have a proper level of checking.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but is there not a slight difference? In an election someone gets sent a ballot paper, but they would not be sent a ballot paper to say, “Do you want to sign this petition or not?” The two are slightly different.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I am not clear what the process is. The hon. Gentleman may well have more information on this than I do currently, but I am not clear how the postal and proxy vote system will work in respect of a petition. The people registered for a postal or proxy vote for an election may not be the same people who would wish to exercise their right to such a vote in the case of a petition. Some people, particularly those who do not have a petition signing place within half an hour’s drive or a three-day bus journey from where they live, may well want to exercise a postal or proxy vote, whereas for an election they can just toddle down to the village hall or an outbuilding of the local pub to cast their vote. So a different group of people may well be involved, and I would like to know what the process will be.

[Mr Jones]

This is also about knowing what the process would be to ensure that the signature being sent in is authentic. Since we had the change on applying for a postal vote, a signature and a date of birth is required, and I understand that the signatures are scanned and have to match. If someone has just written on a small piece of paper that they want a recall and they send it in, is that good enough? How do we verify that the signature is from a legitimate person, one who might not have applied for a postal vote?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman is right about that. We all have experience of petitions where we look down the names and find people who are perhaps not resident in our constituencies, because they happen to be otherwise employed in a theme park in Orlando or as President of the United States; there are all sorts of reasons why they are not legitimate electors of our constituencies, but nevertheless the names have been appended. I believe the Minister’s answer to that is simply, “We have introduced an offence of providing a false signature in the Bill.” That is not a sufficient deterrent, as we know because we have seen the evidence for that many times. So we need some sort of checking procedure to make sure that when Mr Michael Mouse signs a petition it is the Mr Michael Mouse who is a resident of Railway cuttings, Cheam or a relevant address rather than a Mr Michael Mouse who may be a figment of someone’s imagination.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The signatures and names and addresses are not going to be published in the public domain, so how does anybody challenge whether the signature sent in asking for a petition is genuine? I am sure that during his 18 years in the House he has had many petitions where he has written back to people who then deny ever signing a petition. There has to be a procedure in place to ensure that there is at least some public scrutiny of those signatures. If there is not, the 10% threshold could be reached with bogus signatures.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman is of course absolutely right. Indeed, people sometimes forget that they have clicked to add their name to a letter that the computer generated the day before. When we contact them they know nothing about what they have apparently just written to us about in great detail and about which they feel passionately. We all encounter that; it is not an unusual experience. He and I share the view that we need safeguards to make sure that the names that appear are the right ones. There is, however, one point where I will disagree with him. He is still fighting the good fight about the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) when he talks about the possibilities of people harassing a Member using this process. The two triggers we have at the moment—criminal conviction and the 21-day suspension —are very limited. Some of us believe the provision should be wider than that and there should be at least one more trigger, and we will pursue that, but I do not think it is open to the sort of abuse he suggests. I therefore see no reason why we should not make it as easy as possible for people to sign a petition if that is what they choose to do, where those trigger points have been satisfied. With that, I shall be interested in hearing what others have to say.

Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and David Heath

Monday 27th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I am in favour of the principle, but I have my own amendments that would have the same effect.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the threat of recall would have an effect on MPs? In the United States, a lot of people who face a recall just resign. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) contended that the support of 50% plus one of voters would be required for a successful recall, but that is not the case; it would only require 50% plus one of those taking part in the referendum.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman makes valid points.

I want to turn to the mechanism I am suggesting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

So many Members have now referred to me as a member of the Privy Council that I think I must have received that status by acclamation. Will someone please tell the Deputy Prime Minister that I obviously behave as though I were a member of that august club, although I am not?

I assure the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife that the arrangements would be identical to those that currently govern election courts and election petitions. However, if someone were clearly initiating vexatious proceedings, as is the case with the present election courts, the court could, if it wished, award costs against the petitioner, and might well do so if it felt that the process was being abused.

I hope that I have answered all the questions that have been asked. I am sorry to have spoken at such great length, Mr Amess, but I have done so mainly in response to interventions, which seems to be par for the course this evening. Let me end by saying that I think that my new clause is objective, and that it fulfils some of what Members on both sides of the Committee want to achieve. I do not claim that the drafting is perfect and cannot be improved, but I hope that the new clause will begin a process of discussion which may reach a conclusion allowing for many of the things that the hon. Member for Richmond Park and some of his supporters want to see achieved without opening the door to what some people equally adamantly do not want to see achieved, which is Members of Parliament being in constant fear of recall on the basis that they have voted to the displeasure of someone very rich in their constituency.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess.

I support recall, as outlined in the Bill, for serious misdemeanours. Those of us who were in the House at the time of the expenses scandal knew that things had to change, and, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), the proposal on which we are being called to vote today was in our manifesto.

I shall oppose the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), and, although I know it is a dangerous thing to do, I shall support those tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). This must be the first and only time I have agreed with him about anything. I also want to say something about the attempt by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) to find a middle way.

The Bill has been publicised as though it constituted a method of giving the electorate more of a say. It has been suggested that anyone who speaks against it does not trust the voters, and is somehow less of a politician because he or she is afraid to stand for election. It is a bit like being accused of being a witch. Well, each and every one of us has the guts to stand in every election, and to put our record before our voters. I have always said that the one thing that distinguishes all those who stand for election to Parliament or a local council, or for any other elected office, is that they have the courage of their convictions, the courage to stand before their peers and ask for their trust. We should recognise that, because it is an important principle.

I think that we may have given too much away to the unelected quango state and the like. We seem to have believed that if we fill organisations with independent people who have no political influence at all—I do not know whether they are born or develop—there will be better decisions. I am a great big believer in the importance of elected office. I think that it is something of which we should be proud, and for which we should argue forcefully as parliamentarians and other elected office holders.

The Bill is strange in that it has united UKIP with the far left in the belief that it somehow represents a radical way forward. I do not think that it does. I think that it is very dangerous. It does not empower voters, and it will undermine the democracy that we in this country take for granted.

The effects of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park would be very simple. The amendments remove the notion that someone must be recalled on grounds of imprisonment or suspension, and allows the recall of Members for any reason. I think that this the first time I have ever heard a Member present the argument that his proposals will never actually be used. The hon. Gentleman said that it would be very difficult, and that the barriers were very high. Why put such a proposal on the statute book? Is it conning the electorate to give them something that is so difficult to achieve? Is the hon. Gentleman being dishonest with the people who he suggests will be empowered ?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Beamish and David Heath

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We must make sure that the advantages of high-speed broadband reach every community across the country, which is exactly what we are determined to do in time. The good news is that we are reaching an extra 100,000 households a week, so they now have the opportunity to use high-speed broadband. I think that is very good news and we will, of course, continue to roll out the programme across the country.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

If the Minister is so committed to boosting rural growth, why is he taking out of the pockets of poor agricultural workers a quarter of a billion pounds by abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board, which was opposed by two thirds of those in the consultation, including many farmers?

Horsemeat (Supermarket Products)

Debate between Lord Beamish and David Heath

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

We continue to keep our policies on labelling under review. In this case, however, it appears that it is not simply a labelling error. We are almost certainly talking about real criminality, and there are very clear laws in place to deal with such criminality.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

This scandal—because that is what it is—has affected supermarket chains in this country. What investigations have been carried out of the beefburgers that go into the fast food chains, and how confident can my constituents be that they are getting a Big Mac rather than a Shergar Mac?

[Mr Heath]

Those investigations are under way to ensure that if this scandal is replicated in other low-cost beefburgers, it is picked up and we take appropriate action.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and David Heath

Wednesday 27th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) on tabling the new clause. She explained clearly that what we need to do is include in this Bill—we have an opportunity to do it—what is “reasonable” and “practical”, as she put it. We are not asking for any major changes to the system we use for elections in this country, but it was quite clear in 2010 that large numbers of people in some constituencies were denied the right to vote even though they intended to wait in queues to get into the polling stations, as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said.

One issue that needs to be clarified is that the new clause would help returning officers to know exactly what the law is, as there were different responses in different parts of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) mentioned Sheffield. In the Sheffield Hallam constituency, long queues of students waited to vote for the now Deputy Prime Minister. I doubt they will have that problem at the next general election, but if they have such problems when they turn up to vote him out, those who have turned up to vote in reasonable time should be able to cast their ballot.

One issue mentioned by the hon. Lady, with which I agree, concerned the preparation for elections. For nearly 11 years, I was a councillor in Newcastle upon Tyne and in 2010 I went back to help with the general election in my old ward of Walkergate. I was shocked by what the Liberal Democrat administration had done to that ward by reducing the number of polling stations. Not only did people have to travel large distances to get to the polling station, as I mentioned the other day, but there was a capacity problem in trying physically to deal with the number of electors. Making the law clear would be helpful. As I understand it, in one polling station in Newcastle the returning officer took what was referred to afterwards as a “practical” and “common sense” step by allowing people into the polling station if they had arrived at 10 o’clock, locking the doors and allowing them to vote. If the law was clear, it would, as the hon. Lady said, be quite simple to know where the end of the queue was.

The new clause is long overdue and would help not only returning officers but the many thousands of constituents who were denied their vote in 2010. As we have said on numerous occasions during the passage of this Bill, that vote is the core of our democracy.

[Mr Heath]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Evans, and am grateful to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) for tabling her new clause. We have had a valuable debate involving the hon. Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and for North Durham (Mr Jones).

It is simply unacceptable that significant numbers of electors are unable to cast their vote due to the organisation of a polling station. It should never happen again and we must take steps to ensure that it does not. Those Members who have expressed their concern and even anger on behalf of their constituents are perfectly in order to do so, as such things should not happen.

I should also point out that only a small number of polling stations were involved: only 27 out of 40,000 across the country. That is not a representative sample of electoral arrangements in this country, and there were not many large queues at polling stations at close of poll that left people unable to cast their vote. That in no way reduces the impact on those who were affected, but it at least puts it in context.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), has made it clear in everything he has said on this issue in Committee and in this House that the primary cause of the problems was a lack of effective planning by returning officers. That will be effected not by legislation but by administrative action to make sure that they do the job better in future to avoid those unacceptable scenes. They should ensure that enough polling stations are provided to accommodate the electors in each area. It is not acceptable for there to be too few polling stations. They should ensure that polling station staff have sufficient time and training to manage the flow of electors well, as they generally do in most parts of the country and in most elections. In some ways, the firm closure of the poll at 10 pm should concentrate returning officers’ minds to ensure that, given that it is hardly news that the poll will close at 10 pm, they have the right arrangements in place to ensure that a complete and smooth passage for those arriving seeking to vote is effected at that hour.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and David Heath

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Primarolo, and to return to what is a very important Bill. We have reached clause 6, and it is important for Members who have not had the opportunity to study the Bill in as much detail as they might like to realise that the clause is qualified by those that follow, so they need to be read together.

The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) has tabled a series of amendments this afternoon, none of which has an explanatory memorandum. Back-Bench Members—for example, the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord)—could manage an explanatory memorandum but apparently the official Opposition could not. That is a great shame, given what the Procedure Committee has asked us to do, but never mind—let us address the issues.

A casual observer of this debate would believe that the Government are proceeding willy-nilly with the abolition of the annual canvass and that the Labour party has a principled opposition to abolition, whereas in fact, neither of those propositions is correct. First, we have made it abundantly clear that we do not intend to get rid of the annual canvass, certainly in the immediate future. In fact, only one Government have abolished the annual canvass: the last Labour Government, who abolished it in 2006 for Northern Ireland. So, we are talking about the canvass for Great Britain only, not for the whole of the United Kingdom, because Labour did not feel that all these pressing arguments in favour of the annual canvass applied when they peremptorily removed it in Northern Ireland’s case. We must therefore listen to their arguments in that context.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Heath]

Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman—who voted for the removal of the annual canvass.

[Mr Jones]

I am not taking any lessons from the Liberal Democrats, who, frankly, promised a lot of things and then voted against them in this place. Come on—the Minister knows why that was done in Northern Ireland: it was a question of the practicalities of doing the canvass. To draw an analogy between that and today’s proposal is absolute nonsense.

[Mr Heath]

I am afraid that it is simply incorrect to say that the argument was about anything other than the introduction of individual electoral registration. That was the argument and the reason why the previous Government acted as they did, and they made no attempt to bring the provision back.

Setting aside that argument, we have also had assertions that Ministers intend to remove, by decree, the annual canvass. However, anyone who actually reads the legislation can see clearly that the procedure as set out first requires a report of the Electoral Commission—uniquely—and affirmative resolution. Therefore, it is Parliament, not Ministers, who would decide whether it was appropriate to take such action, an important safeguard that the House really should not ignore.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I do not think that Parliament is normally required to do anything, and this will be a power for Parliament, not for Ministers. We would be treading a strange constitutional path if this Parliament were to require any future Parliament to make any enactment. The power is there to reinstate the canvass without the need for further primary legislation in order to enable the then Government, whoever they are, to react promptly and effectively if necessary. I honestly do not believe that will apply because there are no circumstances in which the annual canvass would be removed without its being absolutely clear, from all the information to hand, that it would not have a detrimental effect on the completeness and the effectiveness of the register.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The effect of a more efficient method may be different in different areas. In my more rural static communities, the result of removing the annual canvass might not be a greater drop in accuracy than in my right hon. Friend’s Holborn and St Pancras constituency. The Liberal Democrats seem to vote through whatever this coalition Government want, but what would the Minister say if a future Government received an indication that registration dropped in constituencies held by their opponents? There would be no onus on the Government of the day or on Parliament to insist on the annual canvass being reinstated in a certain constituency.

[Mr Heath]

I repeat: this is a power for Parliament and I expect Parliament to use it sensibly because I believe—contrary to all the evidence—that most Members of Parliament want our democratic system to work as effectively as possible. Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right that there are differences between constituencies. The electorate in my constituency is almost the same as the electorate in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, but demographically the two are very different and a comparison between them would be almost meaningless in those terms. The right mechanism in his constituency might be completely wrong for mine and there may be better and more effective measures we can deploy—as long as we are clear that our intention is to have in every constituency a register that is as complete and as accurate as we can manage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I genuinely welcome what the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) had to say about the amendment, for two reasons. First, he makes an extraordinarily important point about our electoral law and arrangements —that they should be inclusive. Secondly, on a personal note, he probably does not know, although some do, that in a former life I was an optician who had a lot to do with the visually impaired. I set up the all-party group on eye health and visual impairment because I thought the issue needed a higher profile. So the issue of accessibility is dear to my heart—certainly as far as the visually impaired are concerned, although of course it goes wider than that and other disabled groups are involved.

Providing accessibility to the registration process is important, and the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) made points about the voting process as well—whether at a polling station or by other means. It is nice that everybody in the House wants progress on the issue. What we have put in train by virtue of the Bill will allow and provide for yet more work to be done to make sure that the register is as complete as possible, and that includes the needs of people with disabilities.

The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) mentioned the importance of the canvass but added that other means must be available. I entirely agree. The suggestions on data matching in the Bill provide electoral registration officers with a wider palette of opportunities to consult the register of blind and partially sighted people —they can consult it now, although they do not necessarily do so. The evidence that local authorities have of people with disability or impairment will enable them to do a more complete job of ensuring inclusion.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I totally agree. Another source that local authorities could use is the blue badge scheme, which most administer.

[Mr Heath]

Precisely. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in the Bill there is a duty on electoral registration officers to use a variety of means with the sole duty of ensuring that the register is as complete and accurate as possible.

I shall slightly disappoint the hon. Member for Hendon by saying, as he anticipated, that I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, because the Bill already provides for what he wants. Clause 9 allows for the new registration system to be piloted in advance of commencement, and there is no reason why it should not include the information that is collected from application forms. The clause enables electoral registration officers to propose pilot schemes in their areas to test how the new system will work in practice. We expect that to test the robustness of the individual electoral registration digital service in advance of nationwide implementation. There is no obstacle to a proposal’s using the power in the Bill in order to include the collection of a voter’s accessibility needs. That would be a very good use of that power.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I accept that these powers are in the Bill, but I think that what the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) is trying to get at is that this should not necessarily be left to local EROs. Yes, they might take it into account, but in order to get the body of evidence, it would be helpful if the Government said to particular areas, “Could you pilot this proposal on disabled people?”, so that lessons could be learned from the pilots. If it is just left to EROs, some of the better ones might do it, but we might not get the data or learn the lessons that are needed.

[Mr Heath]

This involves two things. First, we need to have pilots to see how we can most effectively secure the information; the Electoral Commission might want to take a view on that. Secondly, we need to ensure that that is reflected in the secondary legislation—the regulations that specify what needs to be collected. There is already quite a long list of things that are specified; indeed, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) has complained that it is too long. Despite his reservations, I think that accessibility issues would be a useful addition. Provisions elsewhere in the Bill provide specific powers to add other requirements. For example, new paragraph 3ZA(1)(a) to the Representation of the People Act 1983 provides the power that the hon. Member for Hendon is concerned about. It seems that his view is shared by the Electoral Commission, which slightly worries me, but I will come back to that.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and David Heath

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

But it was suggested in the speech moving the new clause. The hon. Member for Broxbourne seemed to give the clear impression that he personally would favour a separation of powers, meaning that there would not be this country’s current parliamentary democratic system where we have Ministers drawn from this elected House. Rather, he would prefer Ministers to be drawn from the ranks of those outside the House, which is much more akin to a presidential democracy. [Interruption.] I may be misrepresenting the hon. Gentleman, and if so I apologise. However, if that is his view—and it is a perfectly respectable view—it is not one that I share. [Interruption.] I see other Members nodding because it is their view, and I understand that to be the case.

My second point is that this is not simply an issue about Ministers. It is an issue about patronage and the extent of the patronage of the Prime Minister and Government of the day. That is what we need to address, rather than the narrower issue of Ministers in this House.

My next point is that there is not a simple arithmetical relationship between the number of Members of the House and the number of Ministers: to suggest that there is is to reduce the argument and to take it beyond what is reasonable. Ministerial responsibilities must reflect what the Prime Minister and Government of the day feel they need in order to do their work effectively. There is a relationship between the number of Ministers in this House and the number of others in the House whose positions are created by patronage and both the perception and the reality of the independence of this legislature. That is a perfectly proper comment to make, but there is not, I suggest, a simple arithmetical relationship.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting, therefore, that the Prime Minister of a future Labour or Conservative Government, or indeed the Prime Minister of what we have at the moment, could extend the power of patronage to have as many Ministers as they wish in order to control the political process?

[Mr Heath]

As I shall go on to describe, what the previous Government did when they reached the buffers of the current restrictions was simply to create all sorts of fantastical posts that were not described as “Ministers” but were, nevertheless, an extension of patronage. We know what the Labour party did when in government and I think we can do better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I think it very well might not be; it is likely that at some stage in the future we will reduce the number of Ministers. The hon. Gentleman is refusing to accept that I agree with a great deal of the thesis that has been put forward.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the Deputy Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Heath]

No.

Let me go on to the next point, which is the timing of what is being suggested. This is not the hoary old chestnut that used to be described by the former Member for Cambridge, Mr David Howarth, as the doctrine of unripe time—everything was always for the best possible purposes, but the time was never ripe for it to happen. I am not saying that. I am simply saying that various elements of our proposals for reform of the constitutional arrangements and for the politics of this country are moving forward in various pieces of legislation and at various times. By the end of this Parliament, they will be in place, but this is not the right time for this measure.

Let me try to make some progress. The Government are committed—as the fairer Members who have contributed to the debate have already recognised—to passing power from the Executive to Parliament. The hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Backbench Business Committee created by this Government, will, I hope, recognise that that is the case—

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Beamish and David Heath

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

Obviously, it is always a matter of great concern to hon. Members when their constituents find themselves in difficulties overseas. It is part of the consular duties of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to provide such support as may be provided in country. I shall certainly make sure that these concerns are passed on to members of the ministerial team in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate on pay for our brave servicemen and women, especially in the light of the written answer to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) this morning from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), which announced that 140,000 members of the armed forces will have a pay cut next year? That is in marked contrast to what we did when we were in office, when we honoured in full the recommendations of the independent pay review body for the armed forces.

[Mr Heath]

I seem to recall that there was a significant increase in the allowances made available to members of our armed forces serving in conflict areas. That seems to me to be a significant development. However, the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to raise these matters in the very near future, because Defence questions are on Monday 5 July.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Beamish and David Heath

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I cannot go into detail at this point because we are debating the business motion and I would be out of order. The hon. Gentleman may wish to raise the point with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Heath]

No. I think we have heard enough from the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) spoke about our position on programme motions. I say gently to her that there may be a world of difference between a programme motion intended to prevent Members reaching a conclusion or even debating important matters of legislation, and one intended to help the House reach a conclusion on a matter that we have been debating for a very long time. That is a real difference, which she ought to appreciate. I hope that that partially answers the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd).

The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) made an extremely important point—that if we secure the agreement of the House this afternoon to the changes, never again will it be for a Minister to determine these matters. It will be for the Back-Bench business committee to decide its own business, and that is as it should be.