Superannuation Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this we may take Lords amendments 2, 3 and 7.

[Mr Maude]

When I opened the debate on Second Reading in September, I set out—at some length, I regret to say—the history and background of compensation in the civil service since 1859. I do not propose to do the same this afternoon. However, it is timely to bring the story up to date as regards what has happened since the Bill left this House on 13 October to go to the other place.

I reiterate that from the day I first announced that the Government intended to reform the civil service compensation scheme on 6 July, extensive discussions have taken place between my officials—and myself on a number of occasions—and the civil service trade unions. Proposals were put to the Council of Civil Service Unions on 24 September. In the event, the council did not accept those proposals, but five of the unions—Prospect, the First Division Association, the Prison Officers Association, the GMB and Unite—approached the Government directly and asked to continue discussions on those terms. There followed an intensive period of meetings between the five unions and officials, which on 5 October resulted in an agreement between the negotiators on terms that might form the basis of a new compensation scheme. Later that day, the five unions wrote to confirm that they had accurately recorded an agreement that all their negotiating teams were able to recommend positively to their executives as being the best that might be achieved in negotiation.

Soon after 5 October, agreement was reached between the Government and the trade union negotiating teams. The POA’s executive committee voted to distance itself from that agreement and to request further discussion. The sixth union, the Public and Commercial Services Union, withdrew from the talks at the point when the five other unions had agreed to negotiate separately with the Government. While the Bill was in the other place, the Government agreed a number of changes to it, and this House now has the opportunity to consider those. The group of amendments that we are dealing with responds to a commitment that I made when we discussed this on Report—that is, to reinforce the requirement for meaningful consultation on any changes to civil service consultation schemes.

The new clause includes a clear requirement that future consultation on any changes that would reduce the value of the civil service compensation scheme must be undertaken

“with a view to reaching agreement”,

and it requires a report to be made to Parliament setting out the details of the consultation that had been carried out with the unions. My noble Friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire accepted an Opposition amendment in the other place to delete wording that would have limited the content of that report to such information as the Minister considered appropriate. Lord Wallace also agreed that we would table written ministerial statements in both Houses when the imminent new scheme is laid before Parliament to draw attention to it and to the steps that have been taken to consult the unions. Furthermore, we agreed to limit to three years—this is the subject of the next group of amendments—the power to revive the caps in the Bill by order, and to drop our proposals that would have allowed that time limit to have been extended by a further six months at a time.

During the Bill’s passage through the other place, the Government remained committed to trying to reach an agreement with the Council of Civil Service Unions. I made a number of personal approaches, both orally and in writing, to the PCS general secretary and to the POA inviting the CCSU to put forward alternative proposals for a reformed civil service compensation scheme and seeking to engage further. I reiterated the Government’s continuing aim of reaching an agreement with all the unions. I have offered every opportunity to those unions that wish to engage constructively in negotiations. As I said, five of them did so, and their proposals formed the basis of the agreement on which the new proposed scheme is based. If the Bill goes through its processes and achieves Royal Assent, I would intend to lay that scheme before Parliament before Christmas.

On 9 November, the Council of Civil Service Unions wrote to me with suggestions for areas that could be considered in further talks, and I responded on 15 November. I have to say that the suggestions made in the council’s letter would have had the effect of reducing the level of compensation paid to many lower-paid civil servants, and so it could not form the basis of further discussions. Having a new scheme that provides genuinely better protection for the lowest-paid civil service workers, many of whom are members of the PCS, has been crucial in all the discussions we have had. As I have made clear throughout the process, including when I made the announcement of our intention to reform and on Second Reading, that is crucial to the aims of the coalition Government.

I explained to the Council of Civil Service Unions that, in the absence of detailed proposals from the PCS, work would have to proceed on drafting the rules for a new scheme. Last week, my officials sent the draft rules for the new compensation scheme to the Council of Civil Service Unions to seek its views. Those rules will form the basis of the new compensation scheme, which as I said I intend to lay before Parliament as soon as possible, assuming that the Bill completes its passage and achieves Royal Assent.

The Lords amendments are intended to reassure the House, the unions and all stakeholders that the Government will consult fully with the unions should there be future proposals to change the compensation scheme that would reduce the benefits for civil servants. They merely put into statute what has always been our intention. Arguably, that requirement is already contained in the Superannuation Act 1972, but the amendments will put it beyond peradventure or doubt.

The amendments reflect the lengthy consultation process that I have just described. They are Government amendments that were made in the other place to respond to commitments that I made on Report and Third Reading. I am grateful for the constructive involvement of the unions and those on the Opposition Front Bench throughout the process of refining the amendments to achieve the maximum consensus.

Lords amendment 1, which is the lead amendment, inserts a new clause after clause 1. As I said, it makes it clear that consultation should be undertaken

“with a view to reaching agreement”,

and it requires that a report of that consultation be laid before Parliament. The new provisions will apply when there is a change to the compensation scheme that will result in reduced benefits. The report would have to include details of

“the consultation that took place”,

the steps that were taken

“with a view to reaching agreement”

with the unions or other persons consulted, and

“whether such agreement has been reached.”

I repeat that the Government are committed to consultation with the unions. Like the previous Administration, we will always seek to reach agreement with all unions on changes to the compensation scheme. We know from experience that that may not always be possible, and in such cases, the report will explain why.

The effect of Lords amendments 2 and 3 is that the consultation provisions will come into force two months after Royal Assent. That is the standard interval before the commencement of new legislation. However, because of the need for certainty, the other provisions of the Bill will come into force immediately on Royal Assent. As a consequence, the requirement to publish and lay before Parliament a report on the consultation will apply to future changes to the compensation scheme, and not to those currently being developed for implementation when the Bill is enacted.

A requirement for a report on the current consultation would be nugatory, because no one can claim that there has been anything other than long and extensive consultation, carried out not just by myself and my officials, but by my predecessor in this process, the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who is now on the Opposition Front Bench. This process goes back a long time; there have been three years of drawn out extensive consultation and negotiation. Parliament is well aware, and nobody can have any doubt, that the process has been extensive and thorough; it has been described by the right hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Lady and myself. Equally, it would be wrong to risk a further delay, while a report was prepared and laid before Parliament, before the proposed scheme could be introduced. I have agreed, as Lord Wallace said in the other place, to table written ministerial statements to set out what consultation there has been.

I hope the House will recognise that the Government are seeking to provide the additional reassurance that was sought by the Opposition, and that the changes to the Bill meet my earlier commitments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Maude]

Those are not concerns that have just arisen; they have been there throughout. I have been forthright in ventilating them with the leadership of the PCS and POA, and they know that. We have been clear about the envelope within which it would be possible to make changes because increasing protection for one group can be done only at the expense of other groups. There is no way around that. That is the basis on which we have formulated the new scheme, which I hope to lay before Parliament before the Christmas recess. That is the basis of my case.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

All the Lords amendments to the Bill engage the financial privilege of the House. If they are agreed to, the appropriate record will be made in the Journal of the House.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.

Lords amendments 2 and 3 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.

Clause 3

Final provisions

[Mr Maude]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 4.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this we may take Lords amendments 5 and 6 and amendment (a) thereto.

[Mr Maude]

The amendments respond to concerns raised by Opposition Members on Second Reading in the other place about the potential for the caps in what is now clause 2 to be revived after being put into abeyance, which is what I propose to do next week before the House rises and before the new scheme is laid. The Government also proposed the amendments to respond to the comments about the unusual use of a sunrise provision in clause 3(4)(c) that were made in the third report of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, published on 28 October. My noble Friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire provided a full response to the Committee in his letter of 1 December. We are grateful to the Committee for its report.

The Committee also commented on the other provisions in clause 3 which would enable, by order, the caps included in clause 2 to be repealed and also to be extended by six months at a time. That would override the so-called sunset provision in clause 3(3), which would otherwise mean that the caps on civil service compensation provided in clause 2 would expire automatically after 12 months. The Committee said that “these arrangements are complex”, but added that the two delegated powers

“do not appear to the Committee to be inappropriate”.

However, the Committee was not so persuaded of the need for the power in clause 3 to revive the caps in clause 2, that being an unlimited power that would have been available to any future Government in circumstances that we cannot predict today. The amendments respond to that point. The Government accept that there should not be an unlimited power to revive clause 2. Lords amendment 6 therefore provides for subsection 3(4)(c) itself to expire three years after Royal Assent, which is in effect a sunset of the sunrise provision. I can see why some people might say that that was a bit complex, but I think that, when fully parsed, it makes perfectly good sense.

The sunset of the power to revive clause 2 would mean that it would be there, as the Government intend, as a fallback to revive the caps in clause 2, just in case they were needed because of future problems in implementing the new civil service compensation scheme. However, the introduction of the three-year time limit should provide a reassurance that the power to revive clause 2 would not be available indefinitely to future Governments.

The caps are there as a potential fall-back so that we can be certain—as both the last Government and we have wanted to be—that we can reform the civil service compensation scheme. We have an absolute obligation, in the public interest, to address the unfair and unaffordable nature of the current scheme, and we need to ensure that if a legal challenge is mounted to our revised scheme—and it has been suggested that that may well happen—there is a fall-back option, albeit one that we have absolutely no desire to use. We do not expect or intend to use the powers to impose the caps in clause 2; what we want is to see in operation as quickly as possible is the reformed civil service compensation scheme. We are determined that, if all else fails, there will be a fall-back position so that we are not left high and dry—as the last Government were—because of a legal challenge to the details of the new scheme.

Before the new scheme is laid before Parliament, I intend an order to be made under clause 3(4)(a) to repeal the caps in clause 2 in relation to any new scheme. We intend the order to include a saving provision so that the caps could be applied if, and only if, the old unreformed scheme had to be reintroduced. The saving provision would allow that to happen automatically, without the need to use the revival power by order under clause 3(4)(c). I should make it clear that this saving provision would apply only if there were an attempt to revert to the old scheme. An order under clause 3(4)(c) would be required, subject to the affirmative procedure, if it were ever proposed to revive the caps in clause 2 and to impose them over the new civil service compensation scheme that will be put in place following the completion of this Bill’s passage.

Finally, unless further extended by order under clause 3(4)(b), clause 2 in its entirety—including the saving provision—will expire 12 months after Royal Assent. From that point on, any revival of the caps would have to use the order-making power in clause 3(4)(c), which, because of these Lords amendments, will be available only within three years of Royal Assent. I very much hope that by then the new civil service compensation scheme will be in place and be operating satisfactorily for all concerned—civil servants, departmental employers and the civil service trade unions—and that the taxpayers’ interests and the proper interests of civil servants will be being met. Amendments 4 and 5 are consequential on amendment 6.

[John McDonnell]

The House needs to be aware of what this measure actually means, and I make it clear that I will press my amendment to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman will be able to move his amendment formally later.

[John McDonnell]

Thank you very much for that advice, Mr Deputy Speaker. I get confused when we are talking about sunset and sunrise clauses.

Let me explain what this measure means. Despite all we have heard today from the Government about their willingness to achieve a negotiated settlement on a new compensation scheme and their wish to ensure that all the trade unions are signed up to it and that it is acceptable both to members of those unions and to people not in those unions, the fact is that they will retain the power, over a three-year period, to impose the caps set out in the Bill.

We should remind ourselves of what those caps are: for a compulsory redundancy, an amount equal to a person’s earnings for 12 months, and that amount for 15 months for a voluntary severance. We heard in evidence in Committee—this has been repeated in the Chamber time and again—that that will mean a cut of up to two thirds in the redundancy payments of many civil servants; 60% to 70% was the figure cited by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Any Government will have the power to impose those caps at a later date, and to impose that level of penalty on civil servants who are made redundant.

If the Government are confident of being able to negotiate an agreed solution under the new scheme in this coming period, why do they need the right, over a three-year period, to impose these caps unilaterally? I still think that if they sought to do that, it would be subject to a legal challenge, but why would a Government seek to retain that power if they were entering into negotiations with good will, genuinely seeking an agreement, and taking every reasonable step to secure one?

My amendment simply seeks to reduce the period to 12 months, as an act of good will on behalf of this House in respect of its employees in the civil service. I believe the Government have set the period at three years because they want to maintain their original purpose for the Bill, as previously described: to use it as a blunt instrument to bludgeon the unions into submission so they agree to the Government’s proposals. That is unacceptable. I also think this will be another factor that leads to people rejecting the overall scheme in the ballots that are currently taking place, and instead moving on to take action to stop the scheme being imposed upon themselves and their fellow trade union members.

I urge the Government to think again, as 12 months should give them sufficient time to negotiate and introduce a new scheme, and to introduce any reforms or amendments that might be needed to hone it to make it more workable if there were any problems with its implementation. It is unacceptable for the Government to have the threat of this blunt instrument to hold over civil servants for three years. Introducing this measure would be another contributory factor to the deterioration in the relationship between the Government and their staff, who are meant to implement, with high morale, the policies they introduce.

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I should like initially to make it absolutely clear that the dog has claimed no allowances whatever!

The hon. Gentleman knows, because I have communicated this point to him, that we need to reflect on the public’s reaction a year ago. Indeed, I contributed to the discussion in January and was in favour of a much simpler administrative scheme than the current one. Is the review at the beginning of January not an opportunity to try to get the system right, in a non-adversarial way; to take the public or, at least, the opinion-formers with us, rather than back a year; to make the job of IPSA staff, whom he rightly praises for trying to operate a difficult system, much easier; and to ensure, therefore, that MPs benefit from a simpler process, the public benefit from a cheaper process and the world outside believes that we have not once again lost our marbles?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Can we have shorter interventions? A lot of Members wish to speak in this very important debate.

[Adam Afriyie]

I welcome the intervention and the correspondence between me and the right hon. Gentleman, although we have a slightly different view about the purpose of today’s motion. We know that there will never be a win on this subject with the media and the public, whatever the scheme’s initial form. That is just never going to happen. Anybody who has been around the media, business or politics for long enough knows that that will never happen, so the question for us is: what type of scheme would be most beneficial to constituents and the taxpayer?

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s input during the initial set-up, and I recognise his hard work in looking for a simple scheme, but I suspect that IPSA has not fully taken on board the power that we have given it to simplify things and make our jobs easier. My greatest hope today is that the terms of the motion never need to be used, and that IPSA comes forward with a scheme that works, thereby enabling us to do our job.

With regard to the intervention of the hon. Member for Walsall North, it is notoriously difficult to get information out of IPSA, and I understand why. Among other practices, it might not reflect well on IPSA if its senior salaries were compared with the salaries of Members of Parliament. I believe that there is also concern over the cost of the buildings that it has hired and the contracts into which it has entered. I do not want to go into the minutiae of how IPSA operates; I want to focus on the purpose of the motion and the consequences of its being passed this afternoon.

The motion presents an opportunity for the Government and our political party leaders to stand aside from this issue. The moment a party leader speaks on this subject, it is ignited and becomes a party political matter, with the parties wrangling with each other. The moment a Government get involved, it is a headline media issue—why are the Government trying to change IPSA and get rid of its independence? It is untenable for Governments and political party leaders to handle this issue, and they cannot do so in the way that is needed. I put it to the House that it is right for Parliament to handle this issue and to create the opportunity for the Government and party leaders to stand aside and allow measures to be brought forward. If it looks like those measures will cost the taxpayer more, of course the Government should have a right of veto. However, we need to deliver to the Government and party leaders the opportunity to step aside and allow this place time for calm contemplation and to bring forward measures. It is then up to the Government to make a judgment. We would be doing our party leaders a service, and it would be the first time in 100 years that they would have been given such an opportunity on the issue of MPs’ conditions and remuneration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. As hon. Members are aware, Mr Speaker has decided not to select the amendment. Many Members wish to speak, so brevity is essential.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Straw]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. May I illustrate the point that he and I have made in answer to the Minister’s perfectly reasonable point? At first blush, it appears that the provisions of clause 2(1)(c) strengthen the role of the House against the Prime Minister. However, I remember what happened in 1979. I was a candidate at the 1979 election, so I was no longer working for the Government, but I was in very close touch with people for whom I had worked for three and a half years and knew a lot about what was happening. There was a crisis over the outcome of the Scottish Assembly referendum, and the Commons needed an occasion on which it could give vent to that feeling, because the various smaller parties had to have their positions put on the record. Had there been a provision in legislation for an early Dissolution by two-thirds majority, the Government of the day—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Interventions must be shorter. I understand that the point has to be made, but I would be grateful if we could get to it quickly.

[Mr Straw]

In that situation, the Government of the day would have worked with the smaller parties and said, “You can have your shout on the two-thirds majority, and in return, we’ll give a bit of extra cash to Northern Ireland,” and so on. That would have happened. Therefore, the motion of no confidence would probably never have been tabled, and even if it had been, it probably would have been lost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

Frankly, the point of order that the hon. Gentleman raised last week was nonsense. He did not give me notice of it, so I was unable to respond. I listened carefully to last week’s debate and responded to it. I then made an announcement of Government policy in this House at the Dispatch Box, which I thought was the usual way of conducting business.

The following day, I wrote to the leaders of parties in each of the devolved Assemblies, as I said I would. I did not put anything in those letters that I had not announced in the debate. I also wrote to the shadow Justice Secretary, who leads on political and constitutional reform for the Opposition, to keep him properly informed. I placed copies of all those letters in the Library.

[The Chairman]

Order. We should not be rehashing previous points of order. We should be dealing with the amendment. I am sure that Mr Bryant wishes to do so.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, indeed. This is just about the process and the fact that it has been the convention in every Committee stage in which I have been involved for Ministers to write to all members of the Committee, and, when the Committee is sitting on the Floor of the House, to all those who have taken part in the debate.

My point is that clause 2 has no electoral mandate. Clause 1 has some degree of mandate, in that we had proposed in our manifesto that there should be fixed-term Parliaments, and the Liberal Democrats had made a similar proposal. I do not believe that there is a mandate for a five-year fixed-term Parliament, as both political parties had previously said that they were in favour of four-year fixed-term Parliaments. Clause 2 has absolutely no mandate from the electorate. Indeed, the proposals in it run directly counter to those in the Conservative manifesto, and to what the Prime Minister said as Leader of the Opposition in relation to the reform of the power of Dissolution. He said that he would introduce legislation to ensure that, should there be a change of Prime Minister as a result of the party in power changing its leader, there would be a general election within six months, but that is not the proposal that we have before us today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The Deputy Leader of the House is chuntering away. I think he is trying to talk to you, Mr Hoyle, because he keeps on saying that I am out of order and that I am not speaking to the right part of the clause. Perhaps he could have his conversation with you privately.

The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is absolutely right in one sense. We have to achieve a balancing act. This House needs to exert its power through its majority to hold the Government to account and, if necessary, to sack the Government. In most circumstances, that has happened when a political party has splintered or when a leader of a party has proved unable to control his or her troops—his, in most cases—through the Division Lobbies. We have seen that happen with the Irish Home Rule Bill and with the Budget at different times, leading to a collapse of confidence in the Government on the Government side and the subsequent fall of that Government. I think that we should still stick with that process.

In case hon. Members feel that in recent times motions of no confidence—and particularly successful motions of no confidence—have been pretty rare, it is worth pointing out that we should look at a longer period of history than just the last few years if we are to set out constitutional change that will stand the test of time. We have no way of knowing what will happen to the political parties, as presently constituted, in five, 10, 15 or 20 years’ time.

Looking back over the last 150 or so years, we find that no confidence motions have been used quite regularly and have frequently led to the collapse of Governments. Lord North’s Government, for example, fell in 1782. There was also a sustained period in which no confidence motions were common from 1885 onwards; indeed, there were two such motions in 1886, when first Lord Salisbury’s Government and then Gladstone’s Government fell again on the issue of Irish home rule, which divided the Liberal party—

[The Chairman]

Order. I am sure that the Committee, like me, welcomes the history lesson, but we must stick to the amendments, from which we are drifting away. The hon. Gentleman may feel that he is in order, but he is not. I would like him to come back to order, and it would also be helpful if he faced the Chair.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful, Mr Hoyle. I will address myself to you more directly. The point I am trying to make is that clause 2 deals with motions of no confidence and early elections and these have been a sustained part of what we have put up with. I am not sure whether you are going to allow a clause 2 stand part debate later. I note that you are saying no, but I hope it will be possible to allow a degree of latitude so that we can consider all the elements of the clause.

The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) observed that Governments had fallen by virtue of their Budgets’ being opposed. One of my arguments is that the whole concept of a no confidence motion is excluded from the Bill. It is not clear what counts as a no confidence motion; nor is it clear, in the part of the Bill that we are currently considering, what counts as a motion calling for an early general election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure that that is true. It depended on the Crown—that is, the Government or Executive—retaining the power to dissolve Parliament. I do not think that a measure that was considered to be a motion of no confidence in 1866—namely,

“to leave out the words ‘clear yearly’ and put ‘rateable’ instead thereof”—

would be considered to be one today, and I therefore think that it would be inappropriate for that power to remain.

[The Chairman]

Order. The next set of amendments deals with no confidence motions. I think that the hon. Gentleman is in danger of jumping ahead, and I am sure that he does not want to do that.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am concerned less about hon. Members’ definition of a confidence issue than about whether that definition would be acceptable to the court if a certificate were challenged. However, I accept that that is the subject of a later clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

In case there were any doubt about it, I shall join the hon. Gentleman in the Division Lobby unless the Whips manage to get to him, which is very unlikely. They rarely manage to get to him—he is an undiscovered country beyond whose bourn no Whip has ever returned, since we are doing “Hamlet” this afternoon.

[The Chairman]

Order. It may help the hon. Gentleman to know that the Chair will decide on which amendments the Committee may vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Shepherd]

Mr Hoyle, I have a point of inquiry following your response to the Opposition’s Front-Bench spokesman, which is about the stand part debate. As the amendments are theories in concatenation, it is difficult to address an amendment in isolation without reference to a wider context.

[The Chairman]

It is unlikely, not ruled out. The other point is that I am not sure that we will even get there. At the rate at which we are going, we have quite a while to go yet.

[Mr Shepherd]

Thank you, Mr Hoyle. I shall start with my first observation, which is that the test of each clause in both of the constitutional Bills is to ask in what way it enhances the role of the people in relation to Parliament. The answer, again, is that this does not. The measures are meant to be an internal reorganisation of the rules and regulations of the House of Commons effected through statute. We have had advice from the Clerk of the House that, if challenged, it will be open to judicial interest and the views of the courts. Historically, this matter has always been determined within these precincts and so the question of what we call parliamentary privilege is particularly germane to the Bill. I am very concerned about that. I make the perhaps minor observation that in a struggle between a new Government without a mandate and the House of Commons authorities, who are appointed by the House, I would back the advice of the House rather than that of the politically motivated and interested Government of the day. I do not dismiss the Clerk’s memorandum or accept the response to it, which is effectively like that television sketch “Computer says no.” That is an extraordinary and very undignified response to the Clerk’s advice on something that is of the greatest importance to Members of the House, and through them, citizens’ rights, activities and freedoms.

My next point concerns the accumulation in clause 2 and the proposed amendments to it of purposes, or distinctions between ways of dissolving Parliament. These measures have shifted my position from benign acceptance of the concept of a fixed Parliament to one of questioning whether there was not greater wisdom in the proceedings and processes that we had before. These measures worry me enormously. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) generously moved an amendment in which she has no confidence in order to test a proposition, and she did test it—to destruction. On examination, the amendment is too threadbare and offends the very conscience of why we are here. It suggests that some Members’ views on whether a Parliament should stand or not should be disregarded because they do not have a party leader who represents a certain number of votes. I do not know how such an amendment got through the Select Committee but I think it was to form the basis of some sort of standing order that could be cooked up to meet the point about judicial inquiry into the purposes or nature of the Bill.

Let me make another point about motions for an early election or of no confidence. We have tickled, argued and considered across the Chamber the way in which Mr Callaghan accepted that there had to be a general election, but that was nearly at the end of a five-year Parliament. There was very little scope beyond going the few months left, but he stood up immediately and said, “There will have to be a general election.” I remember the perfervid moments of the Maastricht debates and the subsequent consequences of a Government who had a very small majority wanting to increase the rate of VAT on domestic fuel. The motion was to be vehemently opposed by people such as myself, who had lost the Whip, but not just because of that—it was an opposed measure. It could not have fallen but for the support of Conservative Members who took a broader view on it, and it did fall.

The argument that was put by the bastion of the 1922 Committee and the Whips, of course, for they have an argument for all seasons, was that if it fell, the Government would fall, and that the solemnest duty of any Conservative Member was to support the measure because the confidence of the House stood in the Budget. I shall always have a soft spot for the Justice Secretary—then the Chancellor—because when he lost the vote, he said, with that famous giggle, “Oh, we’ll have to have a corrigendum Budget.” We duly had one on the following Thursday. I am really talking about the pressure that was put on Back Benchers, because we were told that the Government would fall.

If I had stood in front of my constituents at the general election and said, “I’ve got two little measures. The short title of one of them is the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, but the long title seems to contradict that concept,” they would have been bemused. If I had then started talking to them about the nature of confidence votes and motions for an early election, they would have been struggling. We were entering an election and they knew what it was about; there was a crisis. There was a huge public deficit and anxiety about jobs, yet here was Shepherd of Aldridge-Brownhills troubling them with the notion that

“each member of the House of Commons who at the time of the motion being made is the registered leader of a registered party”

and so on. If I had done that, my constituents would have thought, “Well, he’s been with us a long time,” and they might have made a different judgment in the election.

The measure has no mandate. I have opposed other constitutional measures, but however wrong I thought the balance of the argument was for the detail of the Scotland Bill proposed by Labour, no one could say that there had not been a national convention on it. There was no political party in Scotland that had not long resourced such a measure. I recall John Smith’s role and that of a whole series of people. They were alert and alive to the issue. No one could claim that there was no mandate for the reforms and changes that took place under the sovereignty of this Parliament to create a Scottish legislative structure and to pass powers to Scotland. The constitutional developments in Wales and Northern Ireland were similar.

Those measures could claim a mandate. The 19th century is often cited, but these are long struggles. I was a little riled by the Labour spokesman because he referred to the 18th century. It is proclaimed that the glory of the House is reflected in our coming to the democratic age—it is rather like dividing up what happened in a great empire—but the democratic age is fairly fresh and young and new. It did not really start until the 1860s. That was when political parties were formed and there was a more regimented approach to the management of the House—not easy to do. There was a glorious extract from the London Illustrated News next to the office of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash)—I now know where Pericles found the stones to get over his lack of confidence. The extract was from the Queen’s Speech—then Her Majesty Queen Victoria. The burden of it was to say, “This parliamentary Session”—well, this particular parliamentary Session will last for ever, but apart from that—“Her Majesty’s Government will concentrate on foreign affairs. It will leave domestic legislation to the House.” Just like that. That is a world away from where we are now—where the Government have to fiddle and twiddle, and do everything at the behest of a very informed—

[The Chairman]

Order. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) also gave us a history lesson and had to be reminded to come back to the amendment. I am sure that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) would prefer to stick to the amendment. I realise that we can broaden things out, but we are going a little bit too far from the measure.

[Mr Shepherd]

Of course, I joyously do that. Implicit in every line of the measure is the management of the House. That is the only reason why I diverted slightly to recall the London Illustrated News.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Such an experienced Member will know that the referendum is not quite part of this group of amendments. I am sure that he would like to get back to the amendment.

[Mr Chope]

Absolutely, Mr Hoyle. I am sorry, but the right hon. Member for Blackburn, who is a former Home Secretary and holder of many other important national offices, drew me down that road of speculation.

To sum up, the Government have a motive to cover either outcome of the AV referendum. It suits both parties in the coalition to prevent an early general election, which is why they want a fixed-term Parliament—they want to assure themselves of a longer period in office. I say only this: good luck to them, but they should not expect me to vote for the Bill tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tristram Hunt]

My hon. Friend is right, and I shall come in a moment to the Hunting Act 2004, which is another piece of legislation that was open to judicial review. In the courts at the moment, there is the extraordinary situation of an election court judging my—I not sure of the correct parliamentary terminology—previous hon. Friend the Member for Oldham—

[The Chairman]

Order. We will not stray down that path, as the matter is before the courts. We must return to the amendment.

[Tristram Hunt]

Thank you, Mr Hoyle. That proves my point—the areas where we cannot go because they are before judges are increasing.

In his written statement, the Minister simply cites article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, and leaves it at that. It provides that

“proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court”,

and he said he could see

“no reason why the courts would not continue to defer to them”.

The comity between Parliament and the courts has relied on the fact that the internal proceedings were entirely matters for the House’s jurisdiction. Its procedures arising from Standing Orders or resolutions cannot be legally challenged, but statute law can. That is the extraordinary development in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tristram Hunt]

rose—

[The Chairman]

Order. We are in danger of straying into amendment 6, and I would like hon. Members to come back. I am sure that that is what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) was about to do.

[Tristram Hunt]

I was about to come straight back to amendment 33; I will not be led too far astray.

Reference has been made to the new Supreme Court on the other side of Parliament square, which gives the capacity for amendments relating to the self-governing of this place, such as amendment 33, to be overturned by the actions of judges. The Clerk of the House has further warned us of the not infrequent need in recent years for interventions by the Speaker of the House of Commons to protect parliamentary privilege in the courts. As the hon. Member for Stone knows far better than we do, these matters can go from here across Parliament square and even to Europe.

All we want from the Minister is some clarity on this issue, and evidence of some slightly more rigorous thinking than the rushed elements that we have had so far. Rather than being slightly dismissive of the fears expressed by the Clerk of the House, will he provide us with some certainty and a clear answer to the question on statutory instruments and the certificate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[The Chairman]

Order. After such a long debate, may I inform the Committee that I do not propose to allow a debate on clause stand part?

[Mr Harper]

There are several other groups of amendments, and we can expand on these matters further in due course. I shall go only as far as I need to in discussing this group, rather than trying to accelerate the debate. I want to deal briefly with the timetable. I do not think that the Bill has been rushed in any way. It was published in July, it had its Second Reading in September, and the first day of its Committee stage did not start until November. We have another day in Committee today, and the House passed a programme motion earlier that gives us an extra day in Committee on Thursday. I do not think that we are rushing ahead with this. No knives were included in the programme motion, and we are taking the debate at the proper pace that the Committee requires.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I would not want the Minister inadvertently to mislead the Committee. He said that extra time has been provided, but he has not allowed any extra time; he has merely allowed the injury time for the three statements that interfered with the debate. [Interruption.] If the Deputy Leader of the House wants to make a speech, I am sure he will be able to catch your eye, Mr Hoyle. [Interruption.]

[The Chairman]

Order. I would like to stop this bickering between the Front Benchers. Let us move on.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend moved amendment 33, although many members of the Select Committee pretended that they wanted nothing to do with it; to be fair, so did my hon. Friend. She explained why the amendment was tabled—to enable this Committee to debate and test the concerns raised by the Clerk. I shall touch on them briefly. I will not overdo them, as we may have an opportunity to debate them further in a later group of amendments on the Speaker’s certificate. However, I shall deal with the amendment. I know my hon. Friend said that she does not want to press it to a Division, but it is the lead amendment.

The amendment would remove two central provisions—the two mechanisms that provide for an early general election to take place: the vote through which the House can choose to have an early election and the mechanism for having one following the loss of a vote of confidence. Instead, the amendment provides that the early election could take place only on the House’s address to the monarch, which can be made only

“by the Prime Minister acting with the agreement of…the Leader of the Opposition; and…the…leader of a registered party that received more than 20 per cent. of the total votes cast at the previous…general election.”

I have a number of serious issues with the amendment. First, it would prevent the Prime Minister from calling a general election only if he did so for political advantage. It ignores and does not address the circumstances where there is a loss of confidence. It also focuses greatly on Front Benchers, as our debate has made clear. I exempt my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest from this criticism, as she said she did not agree with the amendment, but given their views about the role of Front Benchers, I am surprised that the other signatories to the amendment thought that that was a good idea. The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) is not in his place, but I do not think he would mind my saying that he is somewhat sceptical about the power of Front Benchers and the usual channels. I am surprised that he supported an amendment that suggests they should have a lot of power. As the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) pointed out, not every registered leader of a party is necessarily a Member of this House.

The amendment also fails to deal with what would happen to a party such as the Liberal Democrats, our coalition partners, part-way through a Parliament. How would we take account of the vote it had received at the previous general election? Indeed, the 20% threshold would leave Northern Ireland parties out of the picture completely. If this measure had been in place following the 1992, 1997 and 2001 elections, only two people would have been required to table the motion—the leader of the Labour party and the leader of the Conservative party. In view of what has been said about the need to remove the power of the Executive and Front Benchers, that does not seem a sensible step forward.

It would thus be fair to say that amendment 33 is not well drafted. From what I heard, it does not sound as if it had enormous support across the Committee, including even from my hon. Friend. Despite the fact that she did not agree with the amendment, she moved it in a way that was very becoming to her parliamentary experience and the Committee enjoyed the opportunity with which it was presented.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

In a moment; let me first address the question I have just been asked.

Earlier in the debate, we had a conversation about motions that were not specifically in these terms, and several Members on the Government Benches referred to certain votes. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) referred to some votes on Europe and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) talked about a vote on VAT on fuel. How the Government behaved after the debates on those motions was determined by Ministers, not the House.

[The Chairman]

Motions of no confidence are an issue to be debated later. Members ought to be speaking to amendment 33.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

The Prime Minister—

[The Chairman]

Order. I think we are back discussing no confidence—

[Chris Bryant]

No—

[The Chairman]

Order. I am sorry, but I am making a ruling from the Chair. I feel that this is a debate that we are going to have and I am concerned that we are getting drawn into it now. The Minister may answer quickly, if he wishes, but I do not want to let this go any further after that.

[Mr Harper]

Mr Hoyle, you are pointing out that we can discuss this at length when we get on to a later group of amendments. My view on the hon. Gentleman’s example is very clear: if the Prime Minister so wishes, he can cease being Prime Minister whenever he feels like it. The House could then see whether an alternative Government under a different leader could be formed—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda says not under this provision, but this provision is for an early election. The Prime Minister can cease being Prime Minister whenever the Prime Minister chooses and Her Majesty will then be able to send for an alternative person to form a new Government. That is not what the Bill is about. The Bill is about fixed-term Parliaments, not fixed-term Governments.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am going to allow Mr Chris Bryant in, but I know that he is going to make a very brief contribution.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to you, Mr Hoyle. I want to speak only because the Minister made some announcements in his speech that are obviously significant. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, in a rather self-righteous tone, that he made them to Parliament, and we are delighted that he has done so—I presume that that is a criticism of his colleagues, not of anybody else in the Chamber. However, he has made some important announcements. He excoriated my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) for referring to the Government position before we had heard what it was, but as the Government chose not to make their position known until the very end of the debate, it is hardly her fault. As he knew that he was going to make his announcement this evening, he could perfectly well have written to all parties concerned to make it clear that he wanted to consult on the issue. I suggest that that would have shown slightly more respect to the Committee and to the various political parties involved.

The Minister is proposing a change, but I note that so far he has not been prepared to say whether, if he intends to table further amendments, he will do so in this House. I wholly respect the powers and intelligence of the House of Lords to make sensible amendments, and I hope that it will do so to several pieces of legislation. However, I believe that amendments to legislation that affects elections should be debated and made in the elected House, not in the unelected Chamber. That is why I hope that at some point the Minister will make good his suggestions, that he will guarantee to debate those amendments in this House first, and that we will not have Report stage until such time as those amendments have been made in this House.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The facts show that those who rebel against their own party are more likely to become junior Ministers than those who do not.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I thank the hon. Member for that clarification, but it was not a point of order. Have you finished Mr Walker?

[Mr Walker]

I think I have, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Several hon. Members rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Many Members want to speak, and I want to call as many of them as possible. If Members are as brief as Mr Walker was, I am sure we will hear from a lot of colleagues.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

No, I am not a member of the—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We cannot have two people on their feet at the same time. The Deputy Leader of the House should give way to Mr Walker.

[Mr Walker]

I should like to point out to the Deputy Leader of the House that I am not a member of the Backbench Business Committee.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I will happily answer—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think that we are going wide of the mark and the Deputy Leader of the House is being dragged into areas where I would not expect him to be led. I know that he knows better and I will let him continue with his speech.

[Mr Heath]

I will of course be led by you, Mr Hoyle, on what it is appropriate to deal with on this group of amendments, although I will take great pleasure in coming back to that argument tomorrow when we debate the proposed constituencies.

Many hon. Members have concentrated on registration, and it is an extraordinarily important issue. I yield to no one in my wish to see registration dealt with much more effectively. Indeed, it was one of my persistent criticisms of the 13 years of the Labour Government that they did so little to ensure that the registration of electors was much improved. That is one of the many failures of the previous Government. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who said that this issue should transcend party politics and our views on the outcome of elections. It surely should be a principle that every single eligible elector should be on the register and that those who are not eligible should not be on the register.

Those are the two sides of the coin, as far as electoral registration is concerned. That is why I am so pleased to have heard what the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) said the other day about the extra measures that the Government are taking to ensure that registration is carried out more effectively across the country. We can do more. I am taken by the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, which I have heard expressed before, that we should have a democracy day. That is something we can build on. Perhaps hon. Members could work with the local authorities in their area and make better registration a reality.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

I beg to move amendment 261, page 14, line 8, at end insert—

‘Counting officers

1A (1) The counting officer for a voting area that is—

(a) a district in England,

(b) a county in England, or

(c) a London borough,

is the person who, by virtue of section 35 of the 1983 Act, is the returning officer for elections of councillors of the district, county or borough.

(2) The counting officer for the City of London voting area is the person who, by virtue of that section, is the returning officer for elections of councillors of the London borough of Westminster.

(3) The counting officer for the Isles of Scilly voting area is the person who, by virtue of that section, is the returning officer for elections to the Council of the Isles of Scilly.

(4) The counting officer for a voting area in Wales is the person who, by virtue of provision made under section 13(1)(a) of the Government of Wales Act 2006, is the returning officer for elections of members of the National Assembly for Wales for the constituency that forms the voting area.

(5) The counting officer for a voting area in Scotland is the person who, by virtue of provision made under section 12(1)(a) of the Scotland Act 1998, is the returning officer for elections of members of the Scottish Parliament for the constituency that forms the voting area.

(6) The counting officer for the Northern Ireland voting area is the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland.’.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 262, 168, 169, 263, 265, 266 and 270.

Amendment 353, in schedule 2, page 49, line 15, at end insert—

‘(aa) certify as respects the votes cast in each parliamentary constituency within his area—

(i) the number of ballot papers counted by him in that parliamentary constituency; and

(ii) the number of votes cast in favour and against to the question asked in the referendum.’.

Government amendments 279, 280, 307, 309 to 322, 325 and 326.

[Mr Harper]

The Government have tabled a number of amendments relating to the referendum that are necessary to allow for the smooth running of the poll on 5 May. A number of the amendments—261 to 263, 270, 279, 280, 307, 309 to 322, 325 and 326—provide that all returning officers appointed for the local district council or borough elections in England, for Assembly elections in Wales, or for the parliamentary election in Scotland, are automatically designated as counting officers for the referendum. The provisions also appoint the chief counting officer for Northern Ireland as the counting officer in the referendum. That displaces for the referendum the standard position under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which provides that the chief counting officer would need to appoint the individuals.

The key advantage of the approach that we are taking is that the returning officer and the counting officer will always be the same person, and that will provide returning officers with certainty that they will be the counting officers for the referendum. It will also ensure that the counting officers in the referendum have the necessary experience. The approach that we have taken to the appointment of counting officers is generally consistent with the practice for other statutory elections where legislation automatically deems, or provides for, the appointment of certain postholders in local authorities as returning officers for different elections—for example, local authority returning officers automatically become returning officers for the purposes of European parliamentary elections.

Government amendment 326 makes changes to the definition of the voting area for Scotland and Wales. The change ensures that in Scotland and Wales the referendum will be run on the same respective boundaries as the Scottish parliamentary and Welsh Assembly elections. No changes are required in respect of the current provisions in the Bill for England, which already allow for the referendum to be run on the same boundaries as the local government elections, which are scheduled to take place on 5 May.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

Parliaments, sorry—forgive me. In the other nations of the United Kingdom, it makes sense to use their constituencies. In England, however, where all we have are local authority elections, it makes sense to use them. That is a practical measure. It is not to suggest that it is legitimate to start second-guessing the result on the basis of whether, in this or that constituency, the alternative vote passed. What the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is suggesting is an entirely unnecessary, further division—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I was generous in allowing such a long intervention, but the hon. Gentleman has gone on far too long. If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) chooses not to answer, I will understand.

[Chris Bryant]

Well, I was going to make an attempt at an answer, but I do not know whether it will appease the hon. Gentleman.

I am not trying to undermine the result of the referendum. I would like every single person in Britain to vote in it. I would prefer a system that would lead to even turnout within the bounds of normal elections, rather than a system in which there were important general elections in some places—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—but only local elections in 83%, I think, of England. It would provide for a nicer outcome if we could provide results by parliamentary constituency boundaries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment 328, page 15, line 35, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendment 329, page 15, line 37, at end insert—

‘(aa) directions about the discharge of their functions specifically in relation to voters with disabilities;’.

Amendment 330, page 17, line 5, at end insert—

‘Disabled voters

7A (3) The Electoral Commission must take steps to ensure that disabled voters are able to access information and support to facilitate understanding and participation in voting and elections.

(4) The Electoral Commission must issue guidance in relation to ensuring voters with disabilities have equality of access to the places and process of voting.’.

Amendment 331, in schedule 2, page 26, line 31, at end insert—

‘3A Any notices must—

(a) be published in a minimum 12 point font size, and

(b) include a prominent message in minimum 16 point font highlighting the availablility of accessible formats.’.

Amendment 333, page 27, line 3, at end insert—

‘Access to voting for disabled people

5A Each ballot paper—

(a) must be produced in a range of formats accessible to people with disabilities;

(b) must contain a tactile voting template to ensure participation by a blind or partially sighted voter.’.

Amendment 334, page 27, line 26, at end insert—

‘(za) ensure such rooms selected for polling are accessible to persons with disabilities in accordance with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010,’.

Amendment 335, page 28, line 29, leave out from beginning to ‘about’ and insert ‘information’.

Amendment 336, page 28, line 32, at end insert—

‘(ba) a transcription into large or giant print;’.

Amendment 337, page 28, line 32, at end insert—

‘(ba) a transcription into electronic format;’.

Amendment 339, page 31, line 39, at end insert—

‘(za) information on assistance available at every polling station to ensure access for voters with disabilities;

(zb) clear instructions to all presiding officers and polling clerks on the right of all registered voters with disabilities to vote;

(zc) clear guidance to presiding officers about the information and support specific groups of disabled people require.’.

Amendment 340, page 31, line 45, at end insert—

‘(4A) For the purposes of paragraph (4)(zc) specific groups may include (although not exclusively)—

(a) people with mobility difficulties;

(b) people with a visual impairment such as blindness or partial sight;

(c) people with a learning disability;

(d) people with social or cognitive disorders such as autism or Asperger’s syndrome;

(e) people with mental health problems.’.

[Alun Michael]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this group of amendments. I am particularly pleased that it includes a number of amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who will speak to them in this debate.

The amendments relate to the referendum process, but in the long term they ought to apply much more widely to electoral arrangements in general. After all, the ability and right to vote is the central element of citizenship. The extension of that right and of the franchise—the inclusion of people in the electorate—has been central to the UK’s development into a mature democracy over many years. However, if the individual voter is unable to exercise their right to vote because physical obstacles are placed in his or her way, or if he or she cannot make sense of the ballot paper, the right to vote is meaningless. That is what the amendments address. If an individual cannot understand the choices before them, they are denied their democratic right. At the centre of these proposals is the importance of the democratic rights of those affected.

I pay tribute to the work of the Royal National Institute of Blind People, which has done a terrific job over the years to help Government Departments to understand what it means to look after the interests of the blind or partially sighted, or those who have even slight difficulties with seeing, perhaps with the onset of old age. The organisation has done that work consistently over many years. Today’s debate goes further than that, because it has been stimulated not only by the RNIB’s comments and concerns, but those of Scope and Mencap. A range of citizens with a range of disabilities and obstacles in their way could be helped if the Committee accepts the amendments, and I urge all Members to support them.

To illustrate where things can be improved, RNIB did a number of presentations—a number of Members on both sides of the Committee attended them, including the Deputy Leader of the House. It highlighted the implications, for instance, of the obstructions to understanding television. Members were invited into Aunt Megan’s living room, which was set out in the Strangers Dining Room, to see what following a television programme is like for people who do not have full vision. Actually, the dining room was changed into a more attractive place in many ways—the fact that Megan is the name of one of my granddaughters is absolutely irrelevant. Nevertheless, that imaginative demonstration got across to us how the inability to see things can affect people. Indeed, I am tempted to suggest that in order to lend weight to the argument for these amendments, the RNIB’s next exercise should be to lay out in the Strangers Dining Room a polling booth, complete with frosted glass and the other things it has sometimes provided in order to enable us to understand the problems. If it were to do so, all Members could see the issues that arise when the ballot paper is not absolutely clear, and I am sure that that would lead to Members of all parties being not just supportive of the amendments, but enthusiastic for them.

Ballot papers are often more complex than necessary, usually because the i’s are being dotted and the t’s are being crossed and all sorts of possible challenges are being eliminated. Of course, that has a consequence for those who need to be able to see very precisely what they are doing. As I have said, these amendments refer to the referendum process, although I think they should apply more generally. However, the design of the referendum ballot forms will be different from that of the familiar election forms, which is why these amendments are so important on this occasion.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

If people have to go to the polls only once and have to take seven decisions that will affect every single part of government, I suggest that that will make them more likely to vote in the “lower” elections than they would if those elections took place on their own, particularly when people might be busy, have to take the kids to school and get to work. I suspect that the turnout would advance, but let me make it clear that the Deputy Prime Minister has said that he will want to understand the concerns and that the final decision will be made in consultation with the devolved Assemblies.

In the remaining time available, let me deal with one suggestion—for an amendment to the Bill—made by the Select Committee, of which I am lucky enough to be a member. I hope that the Government will consider it in further stages. The suggestion was that, after an extraordinary or exceptional Dissolution, to avoid any jiggery-pokery or any attempt to engineer a Dissolution to the benefit of one party, the term of whatever Government came in after that Dissolution would be just for the balance of the normal term. If the extraordinary Dissolution came after three years, there would be only two years left for the succeeding Government. I think that might go some way to reinforce the Bill’s intention to ensure that a Dissolution is not done in a frivolous, arbitrary or partisan way.

In conclusion, let me say that that is the only amendment that I would propose and that I propose it in the spirit of improvement rather than criticism. I very much hope that Members will see fit to support this fine Bill.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

We have about eight minutes left, with two speakers to go. I call Richard Shepherd.

Superannuation Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2010 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I have to inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman).

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Maude]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Before the Minister replies, may I point out that interventions should be short, with quick questions?

[Mr Maude]

The answer to the hon. Gentleman is, as I have said several times already, that this Bill is not the last word and that the additional protection for lower-paid workers has to be done by agreement. I do not want to be in a position where we design as if in some laboratory a complicated scheme to try to give protection for the lower paid, because the right way to do it is by proper negotiations and discussions with the unions—and that is exactly what is going on at the moment. As I said, that is the principal aim of the—