Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

My hon. Friend knows that I am very keen to promote cross-border working between Cumbria County Council, his own local authority, Dumfries and Galloway Council and Scottish Borders Council. That is why I am a very big supporter of the so-called borderlands initiative to bring those councils together to try to secure economic development for the area, in which tourism would play a very important part.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

2. What progress has been made on the transfer of powers to the Scottish Government under the provisions of the Scotland Act 2016.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

We have made significant progress in transferring powers in the Scotland Act 2016 to the Scottish Parliament. A large number of provisions of the Act are already in force and we are continuing to work with the Scottish Government on the smooth transition of remaining powers.

[Mr Jackson]

The Scottish National party Government have failed to introduce a single piece of legislation in the past six months; the First Minister prefers grandstanding across Europe to block Brexit. Is it not time she used the powers devolved to her under the Act to start governing, rather than engaging in pointless photo opportunities?

[David Mundell]

I can update my hon. Friend. The Scottish Government have now brought forward one piece of legislation since the Scottish parliamentary elections in May. He may be interested to know that this Government currently have 19 pieces of proposed legislation before this Parliament. Of course I agree with him, and I think the majority of people in Scotland want the First Minister and the Scottish Government to get on with their day job of running Scotland and seeing to the devolved responsibilities, rather than constantly talking about independence.

G20 Summit

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am pleased to say to the hon. Lady that under this Government we have more doctors working in the NHS. The number of doctors in the NHS has increased since we came into government. On the position of EU citizens, I fully expect to be able to guarantee the status of EU citizens. While we are members of the EU their status does not change. I fully expect, intend and want to be able to guarantee the status of those EU citizens. The circumstances in which that would not be possible would be if the status of British citizens living in other EU member states was not guaranteed.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

During my right hon. Friend’s bilateral talks with President Putin, did she gently but firmly disabuse him of the notion, put around recently by among others the Leader of the Opposition, that this country is less committed than hitherto to its NATO treaty obligations, in particular article 5, and that on the contrary we remain wholly committed to the autonomy and sovereignty of our partners, particularly the Baltic states and Poland?

[The Prime Minister]

The Government and I are absolutely clear about our commitment to NATO and to article 5. As I indicated earlier, that is a central underpinning of NATO and of the joint security we provide for each other as members of NATO. I think many people will have been shocked and deeply concerned by the Leader of the Opposition’s statement, when he suggested that we would not be signing up to article 5. It is an underpinning of NATO that ensures not only our national security but the national security of our allies.

Debate on the Address

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point, and it is important that the northern powerhouse is not just about the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Tatton. That appears to be the northern powerhouse, but in my view it must be backed up and supported by civil servants, and I support my hon. Friend’s wish to maintain a strong presence in Sheffield and the north. North-east Wales looks to Liverpool and Manchester as much as it does to Cardiff for economic growth and activity, and we need cross-regional support on infra- structure projects, and people on hand to work with that.

Those are my initial observations on important issues, but I wish to focus on the points about prisons that were raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Harborough. He was gracious enough to acknowledge that for two years and one month I was prisons Minister when he was the shadow Minister, so I hope that I speak with some experience of dealing with what are difficult challenges in the prison system.

In the Gracious Speech the Justice Secretary indicated that there will be a prisons Bill, and I look forward to that—perhaps I may even make a bid for pre-legislative scrutiny by the Justice Committee, on which I sit. The Bill as trailed so far suggests that there will be a lot of discussion about the autonomy of prison governors to consider a range of issues, and six prisons have been identified by the Government to pilot and trail those reforms. We have prisons with “potential for reform”—whatever that might mean—and the potential for new-build prisons. That comes on a day when the Coates review has announced two statistics that put into context the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Harborough. For example, today’s review shows that 42% of adult prisoners were excluded from school, and 24% of adult prisoners currently in the prison estate spent some or all of their time as young people in care before they reached the prison system.

Long-term, deep-seated issues have been highlighted by the Coates review and need to be examined by the Prison Service as part of the prisons Bill, but that raises some questions. I will not rule out support for the Bill—I do not yet know what my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench will think about it—but we must test what it will mean in practice, and now is as good a time as any to do that. What real autonomies will prison governors have at a local level? Will they have autonomy over pay and conditions? If so, that would be a matter of great concern. Will they have autonomy over procurement, education and employment practices? What autonomies will they have, and how will they exercise them in the Prison Service when the Ministry of Justice in central London is managing the prison population and sector as a whole—the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned many of the pressures on prison population movements.

Who will judge prison governors and monitor their activity? What benchmarks will we set on that prison service, and how will we judge and monitor them? What will be the relationship with the chief inspector of prisons? What outcomes are expected from the six potential reform prisons? How will we judge whether prison governors have made a difference, particularly given that many prisoners in many prisons—I will speak about Wandsworth prison in a moment—have mental health problems or long-standing drug or alcohol problems. Many prisoners had long-standing unemployment problems before being imprisoned, and perhaps do not spend sufficient time in prison to benefit from schemes such as the Timpson scheme in Liverpool, which I had the pleasure of opening in 2006 or 2007 with the brother of the Minister for Children and Families, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Edward Timpson). It is a great scheme—I cannot walk past a Timpson establishment without wondering whether the person working there has been trained and supported by the family and firm. [Interruption.] I do go in sometimes as well.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great expertise and eloquence on these issues, about which he knows a great deal. Notwithstanding the correct decision of the previous Labour Government to move to a social investment bond at HMPs Doncaster and Peterborough, in 13 years his Government failed to tackle recidivism among prisoners serving short sentences. Why was that?

[Mr Hanson]

I do not wish to get into too much of a party-political debate with the hon. Gentleman, but recidivism and reoffending did fall. It did not fall to the extent I would have wanted, but it did fall. The key point is to find employment prospects for those who are in prison, and deal with their drug and alcohol problems. We spent considerable extra resources on drug treatment projects, unemployment, schemes such as the Timpson training academy at Liverpool and other prisons, and on trying to make connections with outside employers. However, there is still a hard cohort of people, and one problem that the current Prison Service will face concerns those who are in prison for more violent offences and have longer sentences. We must consider how to deal with that.

What are the measures on which prison governors will be judged? For example, Wandsworth prison is a category B prison that currently holds 1,877 prisoners. Some 45% of sentenced prisoners currently in Wandsworth are imprisoned for less than one year, and 15% are in for less than three months, 6% for under a month, and 11.9% for less than six months. They will not be in prison for very long or so that a prison governor can make an impact on the recidivism of that prisoner. When the Bill is introduced, the Government need to give real thought to what happens in prisons such as Wandsworth, where 45% of the 54% of sentenced prisoners spend less than a year in prison, and the majority are there for under six months.

How do we judge a prison governor when an individual in that prison has mental health problems, or needs housing or employment outside prison? I worry that the Government are considering setting up a reform project for six prisons, at a time when some of the pressures on prisons are of their own making. For example, when I was prisons Minister, there were 7,000 more prison officers in prisons than there are today. Over six years this Government have reduced the number of officers, and assaults on prison staff have risen by 41%. Incidents of suicide and self-harm in prison have increased, and there are pressures on education and employment services.

One might expect a Labour MP to say those things, but as the right hon. and learned Member for Harborough mentioned, the Justice Committee—on which I sit, and which is ably chaired by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill)—last week produced a report on prison safety. I would like the Government to consider and respond to these points. The report’s conclusions state that

“overall levels of safety in prisons are not stabilising as the Ministry of Justice and National Offender Management Service had hoped, let alone improving. This is a matter of great concern, and improvement is urgently needed.”

It goes on to state—this is key to today’s Gracious Speech —that

“it is imperative that further attention is paid to bringing prisons back under firmer control, reversing the recent trends of escalating violence, self-harm and self-inflicted deaths, without which we firmly believe the implementation of these wider reforms will be severely undermined.”

There is a real challenge for the Government to consider not just a reform prison programme for the future, but also what needs to be done now. I commend the cross-party report, and I look forward to the Government’s response. It also states that prison staff are not being retained, that recruitment is not matching the number of people who are leaving, and that there are fewer prison officers than are needed for an effective Prison Service. It is not sufficient for the Government just to put their wishes in the Bill and hope to reform prisons. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), knows that, and he needs to work with the Justice Secretary to deliver on those issues.

I intervened on the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) from the Scottish National party on reform of the House of Lords, which we need to look at. The former Deputy Prime Minister and former leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), raises his hands in frustration, but many of us wish to change the House of Lords. I say this to the right hon. Gentleman, but it also goes to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron): the spectacle two weeks ago of a hereditary peer place being filled by three votes from the Liberal Democrat Benches filled me with horror.

[Mr Hanson]

Let us put that to one side—we can revisit that. [Interruption.] No, I have always voted to abolish the House of Lords. I am simply suggesting that there could be common currency on looking at elements of reform. If the Government are to make changes to the Lords in this Parliament, let us get cross-party consensus on, for example, abolishing hereditary peers. If we do not abolish them, we could stop their elections. My noble Friend Lord Grocott has said that, when a vacancy occurs, we should no longer have elections. This House of Commons is being reduced to 600 Members, yet membership of that House is being increased, and hereditary peers are replaced by an electorate of three—the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale thinks as I do that that is ridiculous—so let us try to make changes.

[Mr Jackson]

I find myself uncharacteristically agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman—I am speeding on the road to Damascus. My worst vote in the previous Parliament was to oppose House of Lords reform, but let us remember for the record that a ludicrous proposal was put to the House without consensus—the proposal was for one 15-year non-renewable term. That obviously was not acceptable, but there is a basis on both sides of the House for further discussion on House of Lords reform.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support and I agree that it is uncharacteristic for us to agree. Having said that, if the Government are introducing a Bill to change aspects of the House of Lords, let us look at changing aspects of it that are blatantly ridiculous. Hereditary peers are one such aspect. If the Government do not include that in any Bill, I give notice now, for what it is worth, that I will table an amendment to stop that practice and make changes. I am sure that that will put the Government and the business managers in a state of trepidation, but it is worth giving that notice now.

My final point is on Wales. There was no specific mention in the Gracious Speech of the Wales Bill, which was in draft form in the previous Session. It fell apart for a range of reasons that we do not need to go into, but that has caused a vacuum that is yet to be filled.

In the Gracious Speech, the Government say that they will

“establish a strong and lasting devolution settlement in Wales.”

I do not know whether that means that a Wales Bill will be forthcoming—I hope there will be so we can examine it—but I would be grateful if, in the next five or six days of debate, the Government and the Secretary of State for Wales confirmed that a Wales Bill will be considered in this Session.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I start by commending the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) and the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) for the grace and humour with which they moved and seconded the Humble Address. These occasions can show the House at its best and worst, and I think we would all agree that their speeches were examples of the former. As the Prime Minister did, I also pay tribute to Harry Harpham and Michael Meacher, whose contributions here are very sadly missed.

I hope you will permit me, Mr Speaker, also to remember our former colleague, David Rendel, who has died in the last couple of days and whose by-election victory in 1993 was transformational for our party’s fortunes. Those of us who knew him will remember his absolutely phenomenal hard work for the constituency of Newbury, which he continued long after he ceased to be its MP. We will also remember his dignity, decency and grace to so many people, whatever their background or political persuasion. He will be sadly missed by many of us, and we wish to send our condolences to all his family at this desperately sad time.

I was most excited to learn that the modern transport Bill will enable the development of the UK’s first commercial spaceport, not least because it means that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) will be able to go home more often.

Despite the opening line of today’s speech, there is no “strengthening economy”. Economic growth has slowed, construction output has fallen, the CBI has downgraded its forecast, sterling has plummeted and foreign investment is collapsing. This is the first time in six years that the Queen’s Speech has not mentioned the deficit, so where has the Government’s credibility gone and where is the long-term plan? The Liberal Democrats helped the Chancellor to balance the books, but the backward steps in the last 12 months are entirely of the Government’s own making: a Budget with a £7.5 billion black hole, a colossal, self-inflicted constraint on public spending and a referendum born of internal Tory management threatening our country with economic instability. Instead of looking at the politically difficult situation immediately in front of them, Ministers should have been looking to the future. There were some futuristic ideas in today’s speech, but while driverless cars point the way to the future, a driverless Government do not. It could have been a speech for the next generation, but sadly it was a speech devoid of vision.

The Liberal Democrats will not follow the Leader of the Opposition in simply reading out an extraordinarily lengthy list of criticisms of the Queen’s Speech; we will be constructive and propose alternatives. Let me, therefore, offer the Conservative party a vision for an ambitious, modern, liberal Britain that celebrates all of Britain’s communities, fights for equality of opportunities and delivers future prosperity through world-class education, creativity and innovation. It is through education that we can give the biggest boost to people’s life chances: it sits right at the heart of what Liberal Democrats stand for; it is the key to freedom and opportunity for all, not just some; it is the essential investment. We are concerned that the curriculum focuses too much on meeting targets and passing exams, rather than giving children the practical skills, confidence and creativity they need to meet the challenges of the future economy.

The Government’s policies are only making things worse. Teachers are demoralised and school budgets are stretched to breaking point. Children are missing out, as subjects such as music, art and sport are cut. So let us use our opportunity here to make a difference and leave a lasting legacy for future generations: an education system where everyone can aspire to be the best they can be; an innovative economy powering us through the 21st century; a properly funded NHS; properly funded social care and mental health services; a commitment to desperate refugees fleeing violence and terror and begging for our help; radical plans to make our country carbon neutral by 2050; investment in skills; and an ambitious plan for housing that builds homes that are genuinely affordable.

Furthermore, rather than tinkering with Parliament, let us replace the other place with a fully elected second Chamber, as the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) pointed out moments ago. Governments sometimes get tired and clapped out and run out of ideas, but it usually takes 12 years, not 12 months. This programme is so sparse and vacuous it is positively Blairite, which is probably why the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) was so opposed to it.

[Mr Jackson]

I admire the hon. Gentleman’s chutzpah, but it is ironic that the 100 or more Liberal Democrat peers, completely unelected and unaccountable, are disregarding the Salisbury convention and the legislative precedent of the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 and circumventing the programme of this elected Government, which we won a mandate for last May.

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Gentleman earlier described himself as a convert to reform of the House of Lords. It is a pity he was not so in the last Parliament, when we could have done something about it. I will not take any lectures from him on Lords reform, given that the Liberal Democrats are the only people who have doggedly stuck with it for the best part of a century. We do not agree with first past the post for this place, but we still stand. It is the system we have, and rather than take notice of an old convention between two establishment parties, I will take the side of the people, and if we can stop tax credit cuts by using the other place, we will jolly well use it, and if he wants to reform the House of Lords, we will be with him in the Lobbies. We heard the Leader of the Opposition’s response earlier on. I worked out that it lasted 30 seconds longer than the entirety of “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band”, the album by The Beatles. He did not take any interventions from either the Government Benches or from those behind him. Maybe he was scared of a little help from his friends.

With this utterly threadbare Queen’s Speech, it seems as though the Government are running out of steam before anyone has even bothered to fill the kettle. Of the 30 announcements in the Government’s legislative agenda, we have heard 28 of them before. I am especially delighted that the Government have announced the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill, which has been waiting to get on the statute book since December 1954. It would be easy for Opposition politicians to stand up and say everything is terrible, but it is not, so I will not. I welcome the better markets Bill, for example, just as I did when Ed Davey announced it two years ago, as well as the criminal finances Bill announced by Danny Alexander in February last year, the national citizen service piloted by the coalition in 2011, the pensions Bill announced by Steve Webb in 2014, the soft drinks levy announced in the Budget and the commitment to build 1 million homes, as featured in last year’s Queen’s Speech. Just in case we did not hear them the first time, they clearly needed to be said twice.

The Prime Minister has my support on much of what he says about boosting education in prisons, adoption and transparency on mobile phone and broadband speeds, although a universal service obligation for broadband, for which I have been calling for many years, will only be any good if the speed designated is quick enough to help rural communities in particular. I understand that 10 megabits per second is being talked about. A 10-megabits-per-second download speed probably means a 1-meg upload speed, and that is no good for rural communities or business. But mostly, this is a Queen’s Speech with more repeats than ITV3—more repeats, indeed, than Dave. The higher education Bill was in November’s Green Paper. The education Bill has already been a White Paper. Broadband was announced last November. The NHS charges are already happening.

The right hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) mentioned the Government’s obsession with scrapping the Human Rights Act, an idea that has now made its third appearance in the Queen’s Speech. He said it was akin to a demented moth flitting about a lampshade. I wonder whether I can stretch his analogy and say that now is the time we got a nice big copy of “Erskine May” and squashed that moth. The Human Rights Act enshrines fundamental liberties such as the right to free speech, protest and assembly, and the right to live a life free of torture. Which of those freedoms does the Conservative party want to oppose? The devolved settlements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have the European convention and the Human Rights Act hardwired into them. This Tory Government seem obsessed with unravelling the Union by their actions, all for the sake of appeasing their Back Benchers.

[Tim Farron]

There will always be outcomes that displease people. If there is a process of adjudicating against the Human Rights Act, it is right that it should be left to the judiciary. It is wrong for politicians to meddle, because the reality is that for every person we read about on the front page of a tabloid newspaper having been exonerated in some way because of the Human Rights Act in a way that people would perhaps disagree with, there are hundreds upon hundreds of less glamorous cases, which we never hear of and which nobody writes about, involving people who have been protected by the Human Rights Act. Let us ask ourselves this question: when we stand up to Vladimir Putin and others who threaten human rights in their own countries and others, what leg do we have to stand on if we undermine human rights here at home? The Government should ditch these ill-thought-out plans or risk them falling flat on their face when they are introduced in Parliament.

[Mr Jackson]

It seems to me that those advocating against reform of human rights in this country want to have it both ways. Surely the hon. Gentleman understands that we have the Human Rights Act by leave of this House. When the House votes, as it did in October 2011, by 228 to 22 on prisoner voting rights—when the sovereign Parliament of this country has made a decision, notwithstanding the decisions of a supranational legal entity—does that not mean anything to the hon. Gentleman?

[Tim Farron]

First, that is not in the Human Rights Act. Secondly, the critical thing in all of this is that, whatever one’s position on the European Union, the reality is that in this world we all pool our sovereignty, whether it is in the European Union, or through an international court, the United Nations, NATO or what-have-you. The question is, what is the purpose of pooling that sovereignty? In this case, it is about us saying that we are part of an international community that puts human rights at the centre of everything we do. We must not forget that people fought and died in two world wars in the 20th century to enshrine and defend the concept of human rights. It is not for us to decide to put a line around ourselves and say that our human rights are of a lesser standard to somebody else’s. Our human rights are shared because we are all human, not just because we are British.

Beyond the Human Rights Act, we have the snooper’s charter, which apparently refuses to go away—another repeat introduction. This should be its final outing. It must be dropped once and for all. We all want a Bill that keeps us safe and keeps the Government in check, but trying to fight terrorists by gathering more and more irrelevant information is a losing battle. Access to Facebook messages, medical records or even a child’s baby monitor is completely the wrong approach. The Government must reconsider.

The Liberal Democrats will take no lessons in liberalism from a Prime Minister who has tried to bring forward the most intrusive snooping legislation in the western world. He is absolutely no liberal, and when he is attacked by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) for advantaging the rich at the expense of the poor and those living with disabilities, he is no one nation Tory either. The Prime Minister is certainly no liberal, and to accuse those who recognise that we cannot legislate away ideas of somehow being complacent or complicit in the challenges we face is utterly outrageous. The solution to extremism and radicalism is not to be found in more pages of ill-considered, ill-informed legislation; it is found by supporting communities to challenge the agendas that threaten the liberal freedoms that we all value.

While all Front Benches in this place can unite on Europe—mostly—this Queen’s Speech was nothing but a stopgap to give the warring factions of the Tory party a couple of day’s respite from their civil war. My party sees 23 June as an opportunity to cement Britain’s position in Europe as a leader on the world stage, because by remaining in together, Britain can be the most relevant it can be—the most prosperous, the most powerful, the most like the Britain we know: outward looking and decent, building peace and partnership. But it is clear that the Prime Minister sees 23 June as a moment he will be lucky to survive.

This Queen’s Speech did nothing to address the key issues at stake; it was just re-runs and repeats. An opportunity to put forward a radical, new, invigorating, innovative, creative and ambitious programme for Government has been missed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and I agreed with everything he said.

The state opening of Parliament serves as a timely reminder to all of us of just how fortunate we are to have a monarchy, rather than a presidency, and how well we are served by Her Majesty the Queen. She is above party politics and we all rejoice in that fact. It also serves as a timely reminder of how hard fought democracy is. That is why it is such a tragedy that there continues to be a low turnout in our local elections, and in our elections for police and crime commissioners. I just hope that there will be a big turnout for the referendum on 23 June.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) on the splendid way in which they proposed and seconded the motion. Their speeches were thoughtful, measured and struck the right chord with the House. It was a big event for both those colleagues and I congratulate them on how they fulfilled their duties today. There was also a contest between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I would simply say that I thought that the Prime Minister won that contest by a short head.

A number of comments have been made about the Gracious Speech being rather thin. I am not at all surprised that it is somewhat cautious. Just a year ago, we assembled in this place following the general election. If we believed all the pundits, it was a surprise that a Conservative Government with a majority were elected. It has probably taken my colleagues a year to get to grips with what it is like to manage a very small Conservative majority; it has been some time since we had such a majority. I am sure that the Government have learned—it has been a difficult year—that, if they want to get measures through this House, they need to take colleagues with them.

I am proud to have a Government delivering security for working people, increasing life chances for the most disadvantaged and strengthening our national defences. I am glad that the Government will continue to ensure that the public finances are kept under control so that Britain can live within its means and invest in the infrastructure that business needs. I am also delighted to tell the House that, according to the latest Government statistics, the number of unemployed people in the constituency that I represent has fallen to 754 and the claimant rate is down to 1.7%.

I welcome the legislation that will allow local authorities to retain business rates. We have not had the full details yet, but I would have thought that all businesses would welcome that, as those in Southend West will certainly do. This will provide more freedom to invest in local communities. I very much hope that, at a council meeting tomorrow night, it will be agreed that we will once again have a minority Conservative council in Southend under the excellent leadership of Councillor John Lamb.

I am also pleased that the Government will support aspiration and promote home ownership through their commitment to building 1 million new homes. This will ensure that Britain is a strong property-owning democracy. Unfortunately, I do not think many of those properties could be built in the constituency that I represent. Unless we are going to build on our parks, there is just no room for any building in the constituency. However, I dare say that many of my colleagues will be delighted with the announcement.

Conservatives are often portrayed as being in favour of hanging and flogging and wanting the most severe punishment for criminals. I was rather taken by the speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) on prison reform, and I certainly welcome the measures in the Gracious Speech on that matter. I served on the Health Select Committee for 10 years, during which time we visited a number of prisons, which was rather depressing. I have been most influenced in this regard by my former colleague and very good friend, Ann Widdecombe, who was the Minister with responsibility for prisons. Unlike my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, she actually visited every one of the 140 prisons in this country; she was determined to do so. There were some tricky occasions, but after she had done her tour, she left me in no doubt that our prisons needed reform. However, no Government have tackled this issue until now.

It is absolutely right that we should protect British citizens from dangerous criminals, but sending people to prison and teaching them how to commit further crimes is crazy. It is also crazy to send people to prison so that they can fuel their drug addiction. The purpose of prison should be to turn people’s lives around. I therefore support the idea in the Gracious Speech that prison governors should be given greater independence in their own operations and management. I support freeing prison governors working in the public sector from centralised state control to enable them to run their prisons more efficiently and professionally. This is a positive step. I know that some people might say, “Oh dear, this is a step towards privatisation and there have been one or two glitches along the way”, but this is a measure that the House should support.

I particularly welcome the rules on sanctions relating to how long inmates can spend outside their cells. One of my constituents recently had a terrible experience. He was affected by a breakdown in communication in prison following a request for compassionate leave to attend his mother’s funeral. He was a low-category prisoner but through a terrible miscommunication he was unable to attend the funeral. Things like that just should not happen.

These measures are also much needed in the light of the concerns raised by the Chairman of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), which we have heard a lot about this afternoon. The Committee’s report has described an escalation in prison violence, disorder, self-harm and the smuggling of contraband. I hope this Bill will mean that prisons will be able to deal effectively with the new and inventive ways that prisoners have found to smuggle drugs and weapons into prisons, including the use of drones. That is absolutely crazy. I also welcome the Government’s proposed action to achieve better mental health provision in prisons. Many of the people who are sent to prison come from broken homes. They have not been set a good example and many of them suffer from mental health problems, often due to drug addiction. I hope that the whole House will unite behind this legislation.

I absolutely rejoice that we are having a referendum on the EU. I voted no in 1975 because I did not want a united states of Europe with one Government and one currency, and I am even more convinced now that we should leave the European Union. I shall deal with my reasons a little later in my speech.

[Mr Jackson]

Was my hon. Friend a bit puzzled, as I was, by the rather carping tone of the leader of the Liberal Democrats when he complained that the referendum was all a function of Tory indiscipline and civil war? Am I wrong in remembering a leaflet that came out at the end of the 2000s depicting the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) saying that the Liberal Democrats were committed to an in/out EU referendum?

[Sir David Amess]

My hon. Friend is spot on. He is absolutely right to remind the House about that disgraceful leaflet. He illustrates yet another broken promise from that dear party.

I am reassured by the Gracious Speech telling us that the Government will uphold the sovereignty of Parliament and the primacy of the House of Commons. I hope that that will continue to be the case. I very much agreed with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) made earlier. The two of us, among others, were dead against any reform of the House of Lords, and the reform that was being proposed was absolutely ridiculous. I am now of the view that the present make-up of the House of Lords is unsustainable. Physically, there are far too many of them. It is ridiculous, for example, that there should be a huge number of Liberal peers when there are only eight Liberal Members of Parliament. It is also ridiculous that the Lords have somehow convinced themselves that it is democratic to hold up legislation.

I am not pretending to have a magic solution for reforming the House of Lords, but we must achieve that by the time this Parliament finishes in 2020. We are going to look absolutely ridiculous if more and more people are put into the other place and it ends up with 1,000 Members, most of whom cannot even get a seat. I love the other Chamber—I think the trappings are very attractive—but the fact that it does not reflect the political make-up of this place is absolutely ridiculous.

I am glad that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) mentioned the British Bill of Rights. What he said was absolutely spot on. The proposed measures will curb the influence of the European Court of Human Rights over British law, which must surely be right. No legal institution should be higher than our Supreme Court. For too long, we have allowed the European Court of Human Rights to overrule our own perfectly capable legal institutions in regard to the sentencing of dangerous individuals charged with terrorist or criminal offences. I hope this consultation on human rights law to make the Supreme Court more supreme will mean an end to fiascos such as the blocking of the deportation of radical extremists such as the cleric Abu Qatada on the ground that their human rights would be affected if they were sent back to their own countries. That is absolutely ridiculous.

I also support the proposals on adoption in the Gracious Speech. The Bill will—[Interruption.]

[Sir David Amess]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend says. The House will be disappointed—I was not about to choke. I have hay fever. I was told about 50 years ago that I would grow out of it, but it gets worse each year. Nevertheless, I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. [Interruption.]

[Mr Jackson]

My hon. Friend is making a superb case. Does he agree that the issue at the heart of the debate is the right of the House of Commons to decide on legislation, and the interpretation of those laws by our own judiciary, rather than by an unaccountable and remote supranational legal entity?

[Sir David Amess]

I absolutely agree. I am relieved to tell the House that there was no arsenic in the water that I have just drunk: I am still standing.

I welcome the adoption Bill. It is much needed to give children in care the chance to be adopted by new families. I pay tribute to our hon. Friend the Minister for Children and Families. Reform is necessary to improve the standard of social work and opportunities for young people in care in England. I am sure that the provision for joint arrangements for carrying out local authority adoption functions in England will serve Southend Borough Council’s adoption and fostering service well. I have any number of constituents who want to foster and adopt children. The Government are right to tackle poverty and the causes of deprivation, including family instability.

I am a former vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on childhood obesity and I will be interested to see how the tax on soft drinks works in practice. It is a step in the right direction. I hope we can reduce the 19.1% of children aged 10 to 11 who are obese in the UK. When I was on the Health Committee, on which I served for 10 years, the inquiry into obesity was my idea and a number of colleagues in the House served on that, but I get frustrated because, although we produced a wonderful report, we could not get joined-up Government thinking, we could not get the supermarkets to agree to the traffic light proposal, and we could not get the food and drink manufacturers to agree to use less sugar, salt and fat in the products that we eat and drink, so I am slightly sceptical about how the proposal will work out, but I wish it well.

I welcome the higher education Bill. I very much approve of the Government’s proposals to ensure that universities provide value for money, reward high-quality teaching and encourage diversity and choice for students. I further welcome the ranking of universities to determine whether they are eligible to raise tuition fees or not. I commend the creation of a new regulator, the office for students, and the introduction of the teaching excellence framework, which will make it fairer for students to choose which university is best for them, and will monitor the performance of universities as well. As the Bill will allow new universities to open, I hope consideration will be given to granting such status to South Essex College Southend Campus, which was recognised as providing one of the most innovative and exciting learning and working environments in the country. Many of my constituents are enrolled as students there.

I know that what I am about to say will upset Scottish National party Members. I firmly support the Government’s determination to keep our nuclear deterrent. At a time when the world as a whole is pretty unstable, it would be madness not to renew Trident so I am glad to see that in the Queen’s Speech.

I was glad to see mention of climate change. I have the honour of being chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on the Maldives. Anyone who travels there can see the serious effect of climate change on that country. A few years ago its President held a famous Cabinet meeting underwater.

On the transport Bill, I am in favour of the Government promoting electric cars. I am told that we have a new electric connector in Derby Gate, which I understand two or three of our colleagues will use. Electric cars are a clean form of transport, if only their energy lasted longer than 250 miles or whatever their capacity is at present, and they are much quieter than conventional petrol or diesel cars. However, I am not a fan of driverless cars on our roads. I might have misunderstood this proposition, but I will need a lot of convincing about that.

From a safety perspective, I can see the presumed logic: since 81% of car crashes are the result of human error, self-driving cars might be a solution. But nothing is infallible, and self-driving cars do not completely eliminate the likelihood of a car accident, which would give rise to the question who holds responsibility for an accident—the driver, the car manufacturer or the software developer. Driverless cars would not be able to guarantee safety in all weather conditions, and given that self-driving cars heavily rely on GPS, how can we be sure that this new technology will be proof against hackers? This move to popularise driverless cars would undermine the skills that are needed to drive a car manually. Drivers and passengers would be helpless in the event that something went wrong in the driverless car they were in. In a wider context, driverless cars might make a large part of the workforce redundant, including driving instructors. I was fortunate to be able to pilot the Driving Instructors (Registration) Act 2016 successfully through Parliament, so I worry about that aspect.

I welcome the proposal for the regulation of civilian drone aircraft. The Government are right to ensure the safety of all aircraft from trespassing drones, including those at Southend airport, which is used by my constituents.

I look forward to the publication of the Chilcot report. The Gracious Speech always ends with the statement that other measures will be laid before us. This House must never, ever allow an inquiry to drag on for seven years. That is ridiculous and has cost the British taxpayer a huge amount of money. The report is to be published on 6 July. We should not draw a line under it; we should look at the way that inquiries are held in the future. In 2004 I and a group of MPs laid a measure to impeach the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair. I intend, through negotiation with the Clerks of the House of Commons, to see if we can use that procedure again if the Chilcot report finds that the then Prime Minister was guilty of misleading the House about the weapons of mass destruction reaching this country in 45 minutes.

Although I was on the Opposition Benches at the time, I was one of the colleagues who came to the House determined to vote against the intervention. I listened to the then Prime Minister and he could not have been clearer about the dossier and the weapons of mass destruction reaching us in 45 minutes. If the Chilcot report concludes that the then Prime Minister misled us, the families of those service personnel who lost their lives will expect Parliament to deal with the issue. Once the report is published, the Government need to decide how we deal with the people who misled us.

There is a further measure that I hoped would be in the Queen’s Speech. The way that the Government have spent money in the EU referendum campaign. We are told that the Government support our remaining a member of the European Union. As half of my party does not support that, I am puzzled about the veracity of that claim. The rules supplied by the Electoral Commission dictate that Vote Leave and Britain Stronger in Europe have a grant of £600,000 and a spending limit of £7 million, along with campaign broadcasts, free access to meeting rooms and free mailshots.

Even though both sides are allowed the same amount of money, there has been significant Government spending which is totally wrong, including the money spent on leaflets, with the remain campaign using civil service funds and other public funds. A leaflet was published by the Government in April containing 14 pages of absolute rubbish about the reasons for remaining members of the EU. Why are we having a referendum if the person heading the negotiation has suggested that leaving would be so dangerous that we would practically face a third world war? That is crazy.

[Mr Jackson]

It is actually worse than that, because although the Government ostensibly support remaining in the European Union, that was on the basis of a comprehensive renegotiation of our relationship with it, which most people agree has not happened. In fact, neither the Conservative party nationally, nor the parliamentary Conservative party, has ever been consulted on whether we should be campaigning as a Government to remain in the European Union.

[Sir David Amess]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It was quite wrong to spend £9.3 million on that leaflet and to send it to 27 million households. I have also learned that the Government have been using civil service funds to boost their campaign, and Vote Leave is not allowed the same opportunity. That tells the country and Parliament that the Government as a whole are not neutral on this issue, which they jolly well should be. Therefore, at this very late hour, with only five weeks left, I urge the Government to allow both campaigns to have access to Government funds and civil service offices, or to disallow either campaign from accessing the civil service or public funds. I strongly encourage the Government to enact legislation specifically to stop Government intervention in any future referendums.

Therefore, I do welcome the Gracious Speech. I am not surprised that it is cautious, because it is quite difficult to manage Government business when there is a small majority. Above all else, I hope that the House will unite to support the measures on prison reform.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

Absolutely; the hon. Gentleman is right that we need to create balance in the system. Speaking for my midlands constituency, we are somewhere in the middle and we face that issue. We want to ensure that the Government fund our local authorities properly and that the business rates base is not eroded. That is an important point that we need to consider as we devolve more business rates. I support the strong bid from Worcestershire, combined with all the district councils, for greater devolution of business rates. I think that it could deliver well for my constituents if that bid was listened to.

I am delighted to welcome the focus in the Queen’s Speech on supporting aspiration and promoting home ownership, and I support the ambitious commitment to build 1 million homes. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who said that he could not see any scope for more homes in his constituency, I welcome more affordable homes in Worcester. There have been some great developments in recent years on brownfield sites and record numbers of affordable homes have been delivered in the past year in Worcester under a Conservative council.

A lot of people have talked about the local elections. As has been widely spread about by the media, we were not as successful in the local elections in Worcester as I would have liked. The Greens won a seat and Labour regained a seat in which its councillor had defected. The Conservatives remain the biggest group on Worcester City Council but, unfortunately, we have seen similar shenanigans to what has gone on in Wales. Instead of being propped up by Plaid, in Worcester Labour is propped up by the Green party. I worry about that, to be honest, but I will work with whoever is in control of our city council, as I have in the past. When the Liberal Democrats reneged on a deal with the Conservative party and went in with Labour a few years ago, I worked very effectively with the Labour leadership on the council.

I was disappointed, however, that when Labour took the leadership of the council at that time, 100 affordable homes were being delivered every year, yet it managed to reduce the number of affordable homes built in Worcester during its one year in office by a third. That was terribly disappointing and it went against the party’s manifesto commitments that it was elected to carry out. I hope that it does better this time around, because, as I said, with the Conservatives in control of the council over the past year, there has been record delivery of affordable homes. This issue matters. As the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) said, this is something that comes up regularly at our constituency surgeries. It is essential for any Government to deliver new homes. I am very happy to compare the record of this Government on delivering new homes with that of the last Labour Government.

On houses and homes, I hope that we will take further measures in this Parliament to prevent homelessness. I welcome the launch of the all-party group on ending homelessness, which was set up by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (David Mackintosh), and the widespread cross-party support it has received.

We have heard a lot about the prison reform aspects of the Gracious Speech and I could not describe them better than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier). I agreed with everything he said about that point, even if I disagree with him about the case for a British Bill of Rights. We need to see the sort of cross-party consensus that is driving prison reform forward on many more issues in the years to come.

The Gracious Speech talks about tackling

“poverty and the causes of deprivation, including family instability, addiction and debt”.

In the last Parliament, I joined colleagues from both sides of the House, including many Labour Members, in campaigning for more action against high-cost debt providers—the likes of a certain firm beginning with W. The Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People, who is on the Front Bench, was very involved in those campaigns. I was pleased that after much campaigning, we moved the needle and more action was taken to support greater financial education, to support financial advice services such as Citizens Advice through a levy on high-cost lenders, and to regulate some of the bad practice that was going on. I hope that that work continues.

I am pleased to welcome measures to help the lowest income families to save through help to save and the creation of the lifetime ISA. I have asked before—I take the opportunity of the Queen’s Speech to ask again, on behalf of Members on both sides of the House—that we look at how we can involve credit unions in that process. Credit unions have immense support across the House and do incredibly valuable work in all our constituencies. As chairman of the all-party group on credit unions, I am keen for them to play a central role in the delivery of help to save.

As a Parliamentary Private Secretary, I cannot say much about the parts of the Queen’s Speech on education, but I look forward to working on their implementation. All I would say is that, having spoken about the need for a national funding formula in every year of the last Parliament, I would be delighted to meet Ministers from other Departments to educate them about how that could be applied, particularly in health and social care.

It is, of course, good news that the Gracious Speech refers to a seven-day NHS. It is very good news from my perspective, having spoken to concerned constituents and junior doctors, that an agreement has been reached. I hope that the agreement holds and that, as happens so often in this place, through talking we can take relations to a better place.

I was interested to note the focus in the Gracious Speech on

“mental health provision for individuals in the criminal justice system.”

We have discussed in this House over the past few years how there needs to be a greater focus on mental health across the whole NHS and beyond. I hope we can continue that progress in the years to come.

One thing that I would have liked to have seen in the Queen’s Speech—I have asked for this to be included in previous Queen’s Speeches, but I am afraid that we have not seen it yet—is delivery on the Dilnot reforms. I recently wrote to the Secretary of State for Health about a tragic case from my constituency in which somebody lost all their family assets as a result of an elderly relative needing care. That is unfinished business, frankly, and I will push for greater delivery on that front, as well as on the Government’s response to the Choice review on end-of-life care.

Like other Members, including the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), who spoke for the Democratic Unionists, I welcome the decision to invest in our armed forces to honour the military covenant and meet the NATO commitment to spend 2% on defence. I welcome the fact that we balance that with our investment in the wider world through the development budget. It is vital that that money is spent well and that we have the right goals when investing in international security, and in economic and humanitarian challenges.

I am pleased that the Gracious Speech spoke about bringing peace to Syria and a lasting political settlement. I hope that we can also make progress, although much of this it is not within our power in this House, on the other great issues of contention in the middle east. In this anniversary year of the Balfour declaration, I hope that we can meet all its obligations, including those to the Palestinian people.

I welcome the upcoming visit of the President of Colombia. Having chaired the British Argentine all-party group in the last Parliament and having been involved in Latin American affairs, I think that our country neglects its Latin American relationships at its peril. There is much that we need to do to build them up and to engage with everyone in Latin America. We must build on the amazing legacy of Canning and of our being the first country to recognise and support the Latin American republics. There is huge good will towards this country across Latin America, particularly among business people.

[Mr Jackson]

My hon. Friend is making a fine speech, but he tempts me in a way that I cannot resist. He will know that a senior politician in Mexico, which has a population of 120 million, said recently that it would be delighted to enter into a bilateral trade agreement, should Britain leave the European Union. That would help greatly in cementing our relations with Latin America and other countries.

[Mr Walker]

I am delighted to have that reassurance from my hon. Friend. I just hope that he could offer the same reassurance in respect of the President of the United States and the Prime Ministers of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I fear that some of those people value us more as a member of the European Union that can get them access to a market of 500 million people than they would if we were outside it. I think we ought to be friendly with all our friends around the world. I respect the arguments that are made about the European Union by my hon. Friends who want to come out, but I have concluded that it is in the interests of my constituents for Britain to remain in and to continue to fight our corner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I hope that I will not be put in the category of “extremist” when I say, as I have in many years, that I believe we could somehow reduce the ceremonial aspects of the state opening of Parliament. Indeed, I find it difficult to understand why we need a state opening except after a general election. I hope that my remarks will in no way be interpreted as any form of disrespect to the Queen—they are not meant to be, as I am sure hon. Members will recognise. If I may say so, too much spit and polish and not enough essential work is undertaken in the House, and in the building as a whole, on a daily basis. I will leave it at that—it will be clear that my views have not changed.

The Queen’s Speech mentions improving life chances. One of the best things to have happened in recent months was the way in which opposition in the House from Labour Members and other Opposition Members—and, let it be said, to some extent from a few Conservative Members—prevented the Government from going ahead with the reduction of the personal independence payment for a number of disabled people. The row we had in the House at Question Time on 14 March led, within a few days, to the resignation of the Secretary of State.

Michael Meacher has rightly been praised today. He served for 45 years and is a good example to those who say, “A few years in the House of Commons and you soon change.” There was no change in Michael Meacher; he remained as committed and dedicated to the people he represented and the causes he believed in as when he first came to the House in 1970. Had Michael been here on 14 March, he would have been in the forefront of the opposition to what the Government intended to do. Let me make it quite clear that if Ministers propose further actions against disabled people and the most vulnerable, Labour Members—and other Opposition Members, I am sure—will be as strenuously opposed as they were in March. Let there be no misunderstanding about that.

It is hardly likely that there will be improvements in the life chances of my constituents, who have faced a number of cuts as a result of the substantial reduction in revenue support from central Government to local government. There has been a cut of over 40% since 2010, and that money is the mainstay of local government funding, not council tax or other revenues raised locally. Such a cut, which I am sure is the same as those up and down the country—except in a few Tory-controlled local authorities that seem to have been compensated in some way—has undoubtedly caused a great deal of difficulties, particularly for those who are in need of help from the council and social workers.

One of the cuts in my borough has been the closure of a unit dealing with domestic violence, which had been established in my constituency for some time. It gave an excellent service that was recognised nationally as well as locally, and I well remember making representations over the years about funding for it, to central Government and locally. I regret the fact that it has now closed its doors.

The Queen’s Speech refers to bringing communities together. That is an excellent objective, and I am all for it. No one could be more in favour of bringing communities together. However—I know this has been said before, but I should nevertheless make the point—the campaign that the Tories waged for their candidate to become London Mayor hardly brought communities together. It was a disgraceful campaign, which I am sure many Conservative Members deplored. Indeed, one or two have already made that clear. The campaign even involved trying to encourage people of Asian origin who happen to be Hindus or Sikhs to be rather suspicious of what the Labour candidate, a Muslim, intended to do about jewellery and such matters. It was so silly, and it was unfortunate. It is not the way to achieve community cohesion. I hope that that will not be repeated. It reminded me in some respects of the by-election campaign at the beginning of 1983, which the Liberal party waged before they were Liberal Democrats.

I support what the Queen’s Speech states about tackling extremism. We are faced with certain dangers, not only from terrorism, but from fellow travellers or apologists for terrorism. We must be on our guard. The Prime Minister was right to say that gender segregation on religious grounds at meetings and so on cannot be justified. We should take pride in the fact that we live in a democracy where everyone, whatever their religion or background, has equal rights. There are few countries outside Europe of which one could say the same.

There has been a good deal of comment about anti-Semitism. Obviously, I oppose all forms of racism. I oppose anti-Semitism no less than I oppose prejudice against anyone else—Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians; I make no difference. To the extent that a few people with such poisonous views have come into my party, I welcome the fact that they have mainly been turfed out. I also welcome the committee that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has set up to look into anti-Semitism in the party. That is the right position to take. I should state, in case Members do not know—there is no particular reason why they should know what goes on in Select Committees if they are not members—that the Home Affairs Committee will conduct an inquiry into anti-Semitism.

We should not forget for one moment the millions of lives that were destroyed—those who were murdered—in the last war for no other reason than they happened to be of Jewish origin. They were not Zionists. Most of them would not have had the slightest understanding of Zionism. Mr Livingstone’s remarks were certainly inappropriate, but—I may be wrong—I do not consider him to be an anti-Semite in any normal sense. However, he seems to have, shall we say an unhealthy obsession about Jews.

If it is right to condemn anti-Semitism, as I hope we all do, it is no less right to condemn prejudice against other groups. I come back to the campaign that the Tory party waged that seemed to arise because Sadiq Khan happened to be a Muslim. I do not accuse the Conservative party of being anti-Muslim—there is no justification for that—but there was a tendency in that campaign to emphasise his origin and so on. One aspect amused me. My hon. Friend the deputy leader of the Labour party tweeted Sadiq Khan, asking, “Could you remind me again? What did your father do?” I think we all know what his father did.

Let me consider the sovereignty of Parliament. I do not understand how it is achieved by reducing the Commons from 650 to 600 Members. At the same time as the House of Commons is to be reduced, if the Government can get the legislation through, the House of Lords will reach a total far in excess of the membership of the House of Commons. How can the Government justify reducing the elected House of Commons while at the same time increasing the membership of the House next door, which is not elected in any way, shape of form, and is subject to patronage?

There is another aspect of the reduction to 600, which is not always mentioned. The governing party, whichever it happens to be, will have fewer members. When one considers Ministers, Parliamentary Private Secretaries, those who aim, as they do in all political parties, to climb the political ladder, far fewer Members will be left on the Back Benches. Far fewer Members will be in a position to oppose or criticise their own Government. That does not fit the Government’s aim to uphold the sovereignty of Parliament. I hope that Conservative Members here and there might have the courage—I see the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) nodding —to oppose the proposal.

[Mr Jackson]

I warmly endorse the hon. Gentleman’s comments, particularly given that, in our system, the Executive are recruited from the legislature. If the number of people in the legislature in the lower House—the elected Chamber—is reduced, the pool from which talent can be taken is reduced. That has an impact when there is also such a large unelected Chamber.

[Mr Winnick]

It is likely that the hon. Gentleman and I hardly agree on a single thing, but we believe in Parliament and in respecting Parliament. The remarks that he just made are appropriate and I hope that other Conservative Members share those views.

Politically, the Speech overall was predictable and against the interests of many of my constituents. It is a reactionary Speech, which outlines policies that in my view—and I am sure in that of my hon. Friends—will not advance the interests of ordinary people. I look forward to opposing it at the appropriate time.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who was elected to this House for the first time on 31 March 1966, when I was one year old —I am sorry about his blushes. He has served with distinction since then, with a slight interruption in 1970.

It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate, and to make observations about the legislation proposed in the Gracious Speech. It would, however, be remiss of me not to mention that overshadowing the Government’s programme is the momentous decision that 44 million electors in the United Kingdom will make about our relationship with the European Union. The referendum was a manifesto commitment, and while other parties such as the Liberal Democrats systematically reneged on that solemn undertaking to the British people, the Conservative party put it in its manifesto with the important caveat that the plebiscite would be brought forward before the end of 2017, on the basis of a fundamental renegotiation of our relationship with the European Union. That clearly has not taken place in many respects, whether welfare reform, the accrual of more powers to the European Commission and Council of Ministers vis-à-vis this Parliament, immigration and border control, or a wide range of other areas that the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, enunciated as his objective, especially in his 2013 Bloomberg speech.

I am usually predisposed to be a loyal but perhaps candid friend to the Government, but I feel disappointed that the Prime Minister has not been good to his words in the 2013 Bloomberg speech. We went to the electorate on the basis that the Conservative party had a settled consensus in the run-up to the general election and the Government’s renegotiation, and I say gently to the Prime Minister that we all have to live with each other after 23 June. In one of my more mischievous social media interventions yesterday, I suggested that he was in danger of becoming like Colonel Nicholson at the conclusion of “The Bridge on the River Kwai”, with the Conservative party as the bridge that ends up getting blown up. Colonel Nicholson asks, “What have I done?”, and I say to the Prime Minister that we must unite as a party and a country, and that the schisms that have occurred as a result of the debate on the European Union may take some time to heal.

Ultimately, however, I trust the good judgment of the British people to make the right decision, albeit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) said, that the cards have been heavily stacked with public money and propaganda from the Government and the civil service. I urge Labour voters to think carefully about their vote on 23 June. The International Monetary Fund, multinationals, and big investment banks are supporting the remain campaign with lots of cash because a remain vote suits their narrow interest, with unlimited immigration, low wages, and squashing down the conditions of working people. Labour voters should think about that when they go to vote.

I have overstayed my welcome on the primrose path of the European Union, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall return to the Gracious Speech. I welcome parts of the Speech, although it missed opportunities to include legislation that would have been apposite at this juncture.

I respectfully disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), as does my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). It was a manifesto commitment that we fundamentally reorder our human rights legislation. We should not forget that the European convention on human rights, which was created by British jurists and of which we can be proud, in the wake of the second world war in reaction to the despotism of the Nazi regime and the holocaust was incorporated into UK legislation only as a result of the sanction of this House. It therefore follows that it must lie within the purview and bailiwick of this House to make a decision.

John Hirst, the axe murderer—he was convicted of manslaughter—brought the test case way back in 2005 that he should have the right to vote, and that the Forfeiture Act 1870 should effectively be updated. As the House will know, the Act precludes convicted felons, meaning those not on bail, from being able to exercise the franchise. The ability to vote in an election is not a human right but a civil right. That is a fundamental difference, although I accept that some would disagree. A much more fundamental point is that the House, having reflected on the fact that the Forfeiture Act was many years out of date, came to a settled position in October 2011 that we should not give the vote to convicted felons. Supranational bodies such as the European Court of Human rights should take due cognisance of that decision. It is a difficult balance—I do not advocate our setting our face against international treaty obligations —but we must strike a proper balance between the will of the people elected to represent their constituents in this House and an unaccountable, supranational body which, incidentally, does not have the standard of legal expertise and jurists that we have in this country.

I regret that there is no Bill for House of Lords reform. The hon. Member for Walsall North and the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), made a fair point, although the latter over-egged the pudding. Proper reform could have won a consensus in the House in the previous Parliament had there been a sensible proposal. However, the proposal for a one-off, 15-year term, with competing primacy, autonomy and authority with Members of the House of Commons, was clearly unacceptable to a majority of MPs. It was incumbent on the Liberals—they had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity—to propose something that could win the support of a majority of Members of this House, and they failed to do so.

I have been mildly disobliging about the House of Lords in the past few months—I called them unelected panjandrums. I have had a volte face on their role. It is unacceptable and indefensible that the upper House is unelected. It is the second-largest unelected legislative body in the world after the National People’s Congress of China, and that is unacceptable in a modern, mature democracy. Conservatives who set their face against any discussion of reform do a disservice to their constituents. We need a proper debate and, by the end of this Parliament, we need workable proposals. I await the Strathclyde report and proposals for legislation for the Lords. At the very least, the Lords offends the spirit of the post-war Salisbury convention, and of the Parliament Act 1911, which circumscribed precisely the role of the House of Lords in relation to the House of Commons in the wake of the debacle over the people’s Budget of 1909.

A sovereignty Bill should have been brought forward in greater detail to defend the role of this House. Politics is always in a state of change and right now it is a state of flux. We have seen the Trump phenomenon, and uprisings of the left and right across Europe. The House of Commons and the Palace of Westminster is a symbol of stability. It has survived over so many years because it has been able to change, but we need to protect and nourish this House in its role as the fulcrum of national political debate.

If I may say so, I think we missed a trick by not bringing forward a corruption Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) was appointed anti-corruption tsar by the Prime Minister last year in the wake of the general election. I am interested to see the work he brings forward when it is published. I am still very concerned—I have raised my concerns with the Electoral Commission over a number of years—about the misuse of postal votes, in particular the coercion of women behind closed doors in some minority ethnic communities. Those votes are effectively stolen. Because it happens in Birmingham, Peterborough, Oldham and Blackburn, people seem to turn a blind eye. If it was happening in Tunbridge Wells, Leatherhead, Andover or Exeter, they would not be doing so. I do not think any malfeasance, malpractice or illegality in postal votes is acceptable. This issue needs to be taken much more seriously. If I am fortunate enough to win a prominent place in the private Member’s Bill ballot, I will put forward a Bill to return to the previous regime of postal votes for people who are away working, or who are ill and have a doctor’s certificate. The essential premise of the liberalisation of postal votes in 2001 was that it would drive up turnout. That has not happened and the system is still open to too many abuses. That was not in the speech.

I am pleased the Government have backtracked on compulsory academisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester skated gracefully over the issue, but it is fair to say that the Secretary of State listened to the misgivings of many Members, in particular those representing rural areas with primary schools that are maintained. My views are well known: ideologically, I am not against academies, but I believed the compulsory element was fundamentally un-Conservative. I did not like effectively giving carte blanche to academy chains to throw off parent governors. I did not like the idea that academy chains were the panacea of provision, when we know there is not the capacity for those academy chains to deliver educational improvements, particularly in failing schools, some of which are in my constituency. I applaud the Government for their pragmatism and their practical approach.

Another issue that I have to say will probably hit the buffers in the not-too-distant future is East Anglian devolution. For those who are particularly interested in this somewhat niche subject, I have a remarkably concise and readable article in The House magazine this week on why it is a complete dog’s breakfast. I will not say any more than that, but it has the fingerprints of a well-known, prominent and recently quite noisy former Deputy Prime Minister all over it. I do not think it will work. I support the northern powerhouse and devolution for Greater Birmingham and Greater Manchester, but it just does not stack up for East Anglia. It is not wanted. It is unpopular, expensive and uncosted, and the Government should drop the plans.

I warmly welcome the prison reform proposals. I have always been interested in prisons, not least because I have an almost-unique prison in my constituency. It is effectively two co-located prisons—a women’s prison and a men’s prison—built and opened under the auspices of the Labour Government in 2005. Jack Straw said that if only one prison was to be built in England, it would be the one at Peterborough. It is a private prison, of course, and pretty successful. I have no problem with private prisons, but the Government need to build on the experience across the world of tackling recidivism and rehabilitation in particular. The key area is prisoners on that conveyor belt of crime serving very short sentences.

Mention has been made of women, people with mental health problems and drugs, but we have to get it right on education and work in prisons. Our prison system is greatly criticised, but, compared with some of the prisons I have been invited to and visited in central America, ours are like holiday camps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) already thinks. I once visited San Miguel prison in Santiago, Chile, where 81 prisoners had been killed in a riot after a fire. The experience has never left me. It was like something from a Dickens novel. On a recent trip to Honduras, we were taken to a high-security prison so dangerous they would not even let us in, because they could not guarantee that the inmates did not have revolvers or other weapons with which to murder us. So we could not offer tea and sympathy at that high-security prison. We are doing absolutely the right thing, therefore, in trying to tackle the endemic issues of poor education and the lack of life skills and, in particular, a sense of civic obligation. Given that nothing else has solved the enduring problem of persistent crime, it is worth our giving these new plans an opportunity.

Along with prison reform and in line with the life chances strategy, I strongly welcome the focus on children in care and leaving care. We have failed so many of those children over the years and treated them, shamefully, as second-class citizens, yet they desire the love, kindness and warmth of a decent family life, like all other children. They have just been unlucky. As corporate parents, even good local authorities, such as mine, Peterborough City Council, have stood by and, through omission rather than commission, let those children down very badly. It is time we had a revolution to focus on those children and young people. It is wrong that, having left care, they have been thrown out on the streets, ignored and pushed on to the conveyor belt of crime or poorly paid jobs, without a family to care for them, nurture them and look out for them. So I welcome that focus too.

On the soft drinks industry levy, I say again that I am not a liberal: I am not a social or an economic liberal; I am a social conservative. I think that we have a duty and a responsibility to enact legislation that helps people and, at the same time, sometimes challenges vest commercial interests. We are facing a diabetes time bomb. In the absence of any other solutions to this societal problem, we have to look at the soft drinks sugar levy. Last October, I went to Mexico, which, as some will know, is attempting to use its tax system to tackle its very serious and worsening childhood and adulthood obesity issue.

I will not take too much longer, because I know that others want to speak. Let me end on two other issues, one of which is the Land Registry. I have a Land Registry office in Peterborough. In 2010, I led a campaign to save the office, which was then subject to an arbitrary decision by the then Labour Government to close it that seemed to have little or no business case. We saved it, but technological and other changes have come along in the intervening six years. My view is simply this: if I can protect the work opportunities, employment conditions and quality of life of some or a majority of the people who work in that and other Land Registry offices through a different governance model, I will do that, rather than opposing privatisation of the Land Registry on ideological grounds. That may not be a welcome message to the unions that represent the workforce there, but it is the most practical and sensible way forward if it saves those jobs.

Finally, many hon. Members will have visited National Citizen Service schemes. I am delighted that they are now being put on a statutory footing and that schools will have a duty to promote the National Citizen Service. Many of the children and young people involved, teenagers in particular, come from quite difficult and dysfunctional families, where work is itinerant, people are low paid and there is not really a tradition of involvement in community activities, altruistic work, charity work and that kind of thing. To see the faces of some of the young boys and girls who come along and are treated as equals—as decent and articulate human beings who can contribute something to help other people, whether it is litter picking or work with older people—is absolutely fantastic. It is elevating, uplifting and great for the local community, so I pay tribute to the Government for bringing forward those proposals.

To be fair, this is a holding Queen’s Speech. It is not one of the finest reforming Queen’s Speeches we have ever seen, but it consolidates some of the excellent work that the Government have done on housebuilding, apprentices, phonics and wider education issues, reforms in the health service and other key areas. I have to say, without being too unkind, that although he started well, the Leader of the Opposition somewhat queered the pitch with a 25-minute rant, which failed, really, to put forward a coherent and comprehensive alternative programme from the Labour party, as charming, witty, engaging and emollient as he was in the first 10 minutes of his speech.

It has been a pleasure—for me, maybe not for everyone else—to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on the Queen’s Speech. I finish by paying tribute to Her Majesty the Queen—what grace, what dedication and what hard work she has shown over all these years—and of course to the Duke of Edinburgh. Long may they go on. Thank you for this opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will continue to be a candid friend to this Government.

EU Referendum: Civil Service Guidance

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Would a reasonable and fair-minded person not conclude that having been rebuffed in their attempts last September to alter on a sui generis basis the purdah rules relating to the referendum, the Government have come back and undermined the sovereignty of this House by using the civil service to achieve the very same objective?

[Matthew Hancock]

No, on the contrary. This guidance is a precise consequence of the Prime Minister’s decision to allow Ministers to campaign to leave. If the Prime Minister had not decided to allow Ministers to remain in the Government but to campaign to leave the European Union against the recommendation of the Government, such rules would not be necessary and we would not have had to publish them. This is a direct consequence of the Prime Minister’s decision to allow that debate to take place and to allow Ministers to take one or other side of the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

There are fewer special advisers under this Government than there were under the last Government.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is more than a matter of regret that the new shadow Defence Secretary has seen fit to take a donation from the immoral, thieving and ambulance-chasing lawyers Leigh Day, who, together with public interest lawyers, specialise in hounding our brave service personnel in Iraq with spurious claims? Is it not time we removed the latter from the pernicious clutches of the Human Rights Act and honoured our manifesto commitment to a British Bill of Rights?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, we should honour our commitment to a British Bill of Rights, on which I look forward to making progress. I do think that this organisation, Leigh Day, has questions to answer, not least because it was deeply involved in the al-Sweady inquiry, where a lot of claims completely fell apart and there was, it seems, evidence that could have shown that those claims were false. It is instructive that we have lost a shadow Defence Secretary who believed in strong defence and our nuclear deterrent, and instead we have someone who apparently takes funds from Leigh Day. I think that that raises serious questions. Frankly, it goes to a bigger truth: one day, I suppose this reshuffle will be over, and we will be left with a collection of politicians—be in no doubt about this—who have signed up to unilateral nuclear disarmament, racking up taxes, debt and spending and one of the most left-wing programmes in living memory. This is a collective act in which they have taken part. We should not be asking, “Is the Leader of the Opposition happy to have the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) in his shadow Cabinet?”; we know he is not. The question is: “What on earth are the right hon. Member for Leeds Central and others doing in this Labour party shadow Cabinet?”

G20 and Paris Attacks

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

May I direct the Prime Minister back to the alarming reports that 450 violent jihadists returning from the middle east have been readmitted to the United Kingdom? Will he give a firm undertaking to the House that he will not rule out any action against those individuals, however robust, tough or draconian, including revoking their passports in order to protect the British public?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to make that point. We have a system for trying to examine everybody who returns in such a way. As I said, some people will come home completely disillusioned with what they have seen, because it is an appalling regime with appalling practices, but there are people who we will have to keep a very close eye on, and use all the powers at our discretion.

Syria: Refugees and Counter-terrorism

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We should work with other countries in accordance with international law, but that should not stop us getting on and doing the necessary things that we have done, including the counter-terrorism action that I referred to earlier.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking a proportionate, measured approach in the national interest. It is a shame that Her Majesty’s Opposition did not take a similar approach when Syria was debated on a substantive motion two years ago, when their behaviour was duplicitous, and that is being charitable. May I take him back to the tragedy within this humanitarian disaster that is the systematic persecution of Christians over many years? Notwithstanding his earlier answers, in designing the mechanics of the refugee settlement regime, will he take into account the systematic persecution of Christians that has existed for many years?

[The Prime Minister]

We will certainly look at that. As I have said, we should look at vulnerable groups. That can include Yazidis, Christians and others who are vulnerable not just in Syria right now but, potentially, in the situations in which they find themselves outside Syria.

Debate on the Address

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 27th May 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

Well said. I entirely concur with my hon. Friend.

On the repeal of the Human Rights Act, when I was shadow Attorney General, I pushed that policy with the help of colleagues in the shadow Cabinet. It remained as a commitment in our manifesto until the coalition of 2010. It was abandoned because of the Liberal Democrats, and now it is to be revived. I offer a word of caution, however, because it is a very important issue. In many respects, it is part of the “who governs?” issue and I strongly suggest adhering to the proposals in the Queen’s Speech. We need a proper discussion. I am clear in my mind, as is Lord Judge and many other distinguished judges, that there are serious problems with the manner of interpretation in the Strasbourg Court and with the use of right to family life as a principle, and how certain people manage to exploit the system, well funded by the human rights lobby, to carry on when they should have packed up a long time ago.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that we need to reacquaint our friends at the other end of the Palace with the concept of the Salisbury convention? They are seeking to undermine the legitimacy and sovereignty of this House, which has a fresh mandate on issues such as the Human Rights Act.

[Sir William Cash]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s point about the Salisbury convention, but we need to respect the fact that some very powerful views are held by some very distinguished people who disagree with us. We do not want to drive change through with a sledgehammer: we need some pre-legislative scrutiny so that the analysis can be properly conducted. I believe that we will win the argument, but it needs to be done openly, transparently and with a proper degree of scrutiny.

As I said in reply to the intervention from the right hon. Member for Gordon, the Maastricht referendum campaign—on which we got hundreds of thousands of signatures—should have resulted in a referendum back then. As the right hon. Member for Belfast North said, there has been no referendum since 1975, and some 40 million people have never had a chance to look at the question and have their say. That is despite the fact that since 1975 we have moved from a common market, which I have always preferred, to a new arrangement with vast accumulations of power concentrated in the European Union. The point is not made clearly enough, in my opinion, that whatever the circumstances may be of the eurozone—and the desire of the French and the Germans to get together—it is not an entity in itself. It is part of the European Union and it affects us directly. Therefore, if we do not make the kind of changes to which the Prime Minister referred in his last European Council statement on 23 March, we could end up nibbling at the treaties in minimalist negotiations and failing to deal with the political, economic and constitutional structures that need to be tackled. This is a question of fundamental change, and I believe strongly that if we do not make those changes the British people will end up in the second tier of a two-tier Europe that is increasingly dominated by Germany. That is not something that the British people should countenance.

I hear it said that we can ask only for that which is not impossible, but we should put that the other way round and say that it is impossible for us to contemplate the idea of a two-tier Europe. That is unacceptable. I call in aid the Prime Minister, who said—in his statement and not in response to a question that he might have misinterpreted—on 23 March:

“In the coming two years, we have the opportunity to reform the EU”—

good—

“and fundamentally change Britain’s relationship with it.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 1122.]

He separated the idea of reform from fundamental change because he knows—as do the Foreign Office, the establishment and the European Union—that this is not just a question of reform of policy or individual laws, such as on immigration, however important they may be. This is a fundamental constitutional issue in which we have been locked by the treaties and under the European Communities Act 1972, raising such questions as the nature of the manner in which are governed.

In addition to that, there is the charter of fundamental rights, which I mentioned. Despite the fact that Tony Blair himself did not want us to be affected by the charter—he wanted to exclude us and Peter Goldsmith was sent over to do a protocol, but it was a botched job—the net result is that we are now subject to the ECJ in relation to the charter of fundamental rights, quite apart from any matter relating to human rights. In that respect, I recommend that hon. Members read the report of the European Scrutiny Committee, which I organised and commissioned. We examined the question for more than a year, and we concluded that the only way we could get out of that situation was by using the notwithstanding formula to bypass the European Communities Act.

The Prime Minister has rightly used the expression “one nation”. Where did that phrase come from? Disraeli. What did Disraeli also say? He said that the Tory party is a national party, or it is nothing. He did not say nationalistic; he said national. That is why this question of fundamental change is so important. I too am a believer in one nation. I pay tribute to the Democratic Unionists for their firm affirmation in this important Queen’s Speech on that very matter. I understand of course that the SNP takes a different view, but one nation has served this country proud, not merely for decades or generations but for centuries, and we must adhere to it at all costs.

The phrase “one nation” came from Disraeli’s book “Sybil, or The Two Nations”, which was about his awareness of the necessity of helping the working people of the 19th century. That was his great mission and he achieved it. Let us go forward with one nation, as one nation, and at the same time make certain that we are not governed by other nations through the majority voting system in such a way as to prevent the people who voted in this general election from having what they want and what they deserve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Clearly I cannot speak for Autofil; any company needs to explain its own business and investment decisions. I am very surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s line of questioning, given that the Labour party is entirely bankrolled by the puppet-masters of the trade unions. For all I know, that question might have been written for him by his trade union bosses. Surely he would agree with me that it is time we cleaned up party funding on a cross-party basis once and for all.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Q7. In Peterborough, youth unemployment has halved since 2010, apprenticeships are at record levels and the jobseeker’s allowance claimant count has come down 51% in the past four years. In addition, the number of children living in workless households is now at a record low nationally. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that such achievements—and the policies that give rise to them, which were consistently opposed by Labour—show political courage and will change people’s lives for the better, and are not, as some people have foolishly suggested, the result of an ideological commitment to austerity?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Given that we were told by the Opposition at the outset of the coalition that 3 million people would be unemployed, it is striking that there are now more people in work than ever before. I find that striking in my own constituency, as the hon. Gentleman no doubt does in his. I remember being warned by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) that there would be a “post-Soviet” meltdown and that people would be fending for themselves on the streets, but we now have fewer young people than ever in Sheffield who are not in education, employment or training. There are fewer NEETs in that great city than ever before, and we are seeing that repeated across the country. That is a result of a balanced, pragmatic, non-ideological approach to balancing the books steadily over time.

Recall of MPs Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The drafting of the Bill reflects that undesirable risk that matters of conscience could result in the loss of a seat. A general election inevitably follows the MP’s selection. We all make policy arguments to our electorate each time, and the ability to do that is still in place.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Several of us have serious worries about undermining not just the sovereignty of Parliament, but the sanctity of the general election. My right hon. Friend will know that Edmund Burke said in the 18th century that he was a representative, not a delegate. It is noteworthy that he was removed by the electors of Bristol in a general election shortly thereafter.

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many hon. Members will be familiar with what Edmund Burke said:

“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

He made that point very strongly and was promptly thrown out by the electorate at the next election, which illustrates the point arising from the intervention made by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick).

Our early exchanges have made it clear that the opposing poles—I hesitate to call them extremes—in the debate have good intentions, and reasonable and serious points are being made. In developing the proposals, the Government have tried to steer a sensible and reasonable course. We believe that recall has a role in dealing with serious wrongdoing. If an MP has been found guilty of serious wrongdoing and clear lines have been crossed, the public must have their say about whether that Member should remain in office.

We have stopped short of enabling recall on any grounds so that we preserve the freedom of Members of Parliament to vote with their conscience and to take difficult decisions without facing constant challenges, at the public’s expense, from their political opponents. We have, of course, considered a range of recall models, including those used internationally, but there is no direct equivalent in a constitutional system such as ours anywhere in the world, so we are breaking new ground, and it is the tradition of the House and the country that we proceed with care when making constitutional change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

That is exactly what I was alluding to when I said that the Standards Committee is considering ways to strengthen its credibility with members of the public. My right hon. Friend has substantial experience of those issues from his time as Leader of the House. I am sure that he will make an important and serious contribution to the debate.

I recognise that the creation of a recall mechanism for Members of Parliament clearly raises the question of how recall might fit with the disciplinary arrangements for other office holders in future. The triggers in the Bill have been carefully designed to fit with the particular rules of this House, and for that reason cannot be automatically applied to the recall of other elected office holders. This is not, and is not designed to be, a one-size-fits-all piece of legislation—that would be even more difficult to establish a consensus around—but we must of course learn the appropriate lessons from its implementation, which might in future be applied to other areas. I know that there will be debate, both today and later, on which other areas it might be appropriate to extend recall to. However, this Bill is narrowly about Members of Parliament.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

Returning to the point made by our hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) on the efficacy of primary legislation, the House might know that in 1947 the Labour MP Garry Allingham was expelled from the House for writing disobliging comments about fellow Members—not for any criminal offence—so there is a precedent for expelling a Member whose conduct falls below that which most electors would think suitable and appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax]

Ah. That is another question. I am not going to look back with hindsight. I was not even here. We are where we are, and I do not believe that a recall Bill would have made any difference in this instance. The expenses scandal has unfortunately caused all of us in this place to look backwards. The point has been made to me on many occasions, in spite of the fact that I was not here. Even now, the shadow of that appalling time hangs over this place. We have to shake it off and put it behind us. People have paid and some have gone to jail. We should move on in a way that allows us, as the responsible adults and grown-up politicians we are all meant to be, to please the electorate in the way they want to be pleased: by behaving in an honourable fashion.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

It is as well to remember that the expenses scandal in the 2005-10 Parliament was the result not merely of individual foibles but of a collective, institutional failure to embrace openness and transparency —under the previous Government but with the collusion of other parties; it was not solely the result of the malfeasance of individual Members.

[Richard Drax]

I take my hon. Friend’s point entirely; he is absolutely right.

I was not here, but I have heard from those who were that the expenses scandal was sparked not least by a lack of clarity about what could be claimed. Nowadays, there are MPs appearing in the newspapers for buying staplers and other perfectly legitimate things for the office, so it has gone from one extreme to the other. We all know if we have behaved dishonourably or done something wrong, and if it is so heinous, we should leave our job; of that I have absolutely no doubt.

I ask the Government to think carefully about the Bill. If it becomes law, I fear there will be a gathering momentum, as is often the case with such legislation, to add on bits. Indeed, amendments are already being discussed. I have listened all afternoon—it is important to hear people’s views—and people are already keen to add on bits. The hon. Member for Clacton, who is no longer in his place, was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) about an incinerator plant that 65,000 of his constituents were against; my hon. Friend said that had he voted for the plant, it might have sparked a recall. I think the hon. Gentleman was rather amazed that the point was raised.

To conclude, we are here to represent our constituents for a period of five years—not that I agree with fixed-term Parliaments; incidentally, if I may get in some free advertising, there is a debate about that on Thursday. On the matter in hand, however, will the Government please think carefully about this Bill? It should be a matter of honour, honour, honour, not legislation, legislation, legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

I certainly believe that hon. Members should be clearly protected when expressing their views properly, honourably and honestly as legislators in this House. I firmly believe that legislators should be properly protected in doing their conscientious duty in this House, but when someone is elected for one party and suddenly flips to join another, a constituency should be able to recall that MP. That is why I support amendments such as those proposed by the hon. Member for Richmond Park.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

I am afraid that kind words butter no parsnips. If the hon. Gentleman supports the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), he is essentially allowing a value judgment by a minority of the electorate in each constituency, subject to the recall procedure, to be the determinant factor, so he cannot give that guarantee on, for instance, a moral or conscience issue.

[Mark Durkan]

I am almost being prompted to speak specifically to some of the amendments. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) asked me about a decision being taken by this House to, in effect, activate the expulsion proceedings—the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) was right to say that this is an expulsion Bill, rather than a recall Bill. The principle of recall is meant to be in the hands of the voters. The voters in a constituency elect an MP and the power of recall is meant to lie with them, but the Bill is not about a power of recall that lies with the voters. It is about the power to initiate a recall petition being in the hands of this House or of the court; and, particularly if the process was activated because that Member’s views were not comfortable for others in the House, an election would be called simply on the basis of 10% of the constituents signing a petition. It is wrong that a recall should be triggered, with someone losing their seat and having to go into a by-election, on the basis of 10% of the vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. I am afraid that there are too many risks to be confident that the process of notice of intent to recall leading to the 20% petition could necessarily be regarded as objective and fair. All that is required to be done to damage substantially and perhaps fatally the reputation of a Member of Parliament is for such an allegation to be made, which may or may not lead to any charge for an offence or even relate to an offence and which may be something that is the product of their private and personal life and not of their activities in their professional responsibilities as a Member of Parliament. The fact that that kind of recall can be triggered for whatever reason gives an opportunity for substantial damage to be done without any objective and fair conclusion having been reached, which should be the case if one is going to have one’s livelihood put at risk in that way.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

Is my right hon. Friend not drawing the distinction between the Government’ proposals, which, although not perfect, are formalising the fact that the recall process will be around criminal behaviour and misdemeanours rather than the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), which will be focused on conscience and policy issues? That distinction is very dangerous, which is why my hon. Friend’s amendments should fall.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend leads me on to the most important aspect of this, which is that what is being sought here is an opportunity for recall in order to seek to influence the views of Members of Parliament. If that is not the case, why would the public be doing it? I have made the argument about allegations of poor behaviour. The Government’s recall Bill, which I support and was involved in, directs itself towards a perceived gap in the regulatory process relating to Members of Parliament who commit criminal offences or who behave in a manner that seriously breaches the code of conduct.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It would be wrong to have a power of recall to try to sanction Members of Parliament. This recall Bill puts in place an objective and fair process whereby, if something is proven, members of the public may, by means of a petition, recall a Member of Parliament and subject them to a by-election. However, the amendments that we will consider in due course would put in place a substantially different process by giving people the opportunity to intervene by saying, “You, as my Member of Parliament, are expressing a view with which I do not agree”—for reasons of conscience, policy, party or whatever it might be—“and I want to demonstrate that you are doing something that we do not agree with to try to influence you to take a different approach.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne Marie Morris]

The hon. Lady makes another good point about the challenge, which the Government have faced, of trying to define triggers, rather than relying on the people to look at why and by whom an individual is being recalled. She identifies the problem, but I am not convinced her solution would be better, safer or less liable to abuse than mine: the name of the sponsor, a clear statement of the reason for a recall and the opportunity for the Member to respond.

We have debated whether the percentage is too high or too low. It is extraordinarily hard to know what the correct figure should be. It will depend partly on whether we adopt the truly democratic approach proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, which I support, or the—in my view—more restrained democratic approach proposed by the Government. I think that my hon. Friend is right to opt for a higher percentage. I hear the argument about it being too high, but on reflection I am confident it is the right figure. We are concerned in this House, this goldfish bowl, about how the British people see us, and some are worried that others with adverse views might endeavour to misuse the Bill. I am the first to agree that every country is different—we are very different from the US—but why is it that in countries with a truly democratic recall process there have not been the catastrophic events feared by some in the House?

To return to where I started, this is a matter of trust. We spend a lot of time with our constituents. Every year, I deal with 6,000 new cases—not simply complaints, but real issues of housing, benefits, health and so on—and in dealing with so many people, one gets under the skin of a community and people come to understand and trust their MP. It is something we have to earn—it is not a right—but if we can earn it, the sort of recall process suggested by my hon. Friend can work.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

On the distinction between a legitimate issue of criminal misbehaviour and sincere, well-meaning beliefs, my hon. Friend still has not convinced me that people such as Sydney Silverman, Leo Abse, who campaigned on homosexual law reform, and others would not have been subject to recall and lost those ballots.

[Anne Marie Morris]

We can speculate about what might have happened, but it is not as simple as whether something is a criminal offence. So many things, situations and reasons could serve as a basis for recall that if we tried to over-categorise them, we could get into a legislative nightmare trying to provide for every single event. I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I do not think that even he could provide a perfect definition giving the complete protection he would like, and that brings me back to trust. Trust is something very special. Married couples need it: there are no rules or regulations for marriage; it works if there is trust and if both people want to see it through. For that reason, I think this can work.

I commend the Government for having the courage to introduce the Bill. It is very important, but I will work with my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park to try to amend it to include some of the proposals I have made, which I hope Members will accept.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Let me declare an interest at the outset, as an adjunct associate professor of British politics at Richmond university. If my comments are somewhat ponderous, that will probably be the reason.

On 17 October 1834, crowds gathered on the south bank of the Thames to cheer on the conflagration that consumed the Palace of Westminster. They were cheering at the prospect of several MPs dying in the hideous blaze that had begun when the tally sticks were burnt in the oven below the House of Lords as a result of the less than diligent way in which the men were performing their duties. They had gone off to dinner, and to the pub. The point is that there have never been any halcyon days in which Members of Parliament enjoyed great popularity. They have never lived in the land of milk and honey, and to suggest otherwise would be quite wrong.

My concern about the Bill and the amendments being put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) is that they are predicated on myths. As my right hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) and for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) have said, the merit of the Government’s proposals is that they make a clear distinction between malfeasance, criminal conduct and misbehaviour and they address the legitimate concerns that have been expressed about scapegoating people with deeply unpopular or unfashionable views. Examples could include Willie Hamilton, an ardent republican, or Sydney Silverman, with his long-standing commitment to the abolition of capital punishment, or Leo Abse, who was in favour of homosexual law reform. They were all decent, honourable Members of this House, but they might have fallen foul of a recall process instigated by powerful vested interests in their constituencies and across the country.

Many myths have been flying around, one of which is that turnout has been falling. It has not. Over the past two general elections, it has gone up to 65% from the low point of 59% in 2001. I was corrected by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) when I mentioned Garry Allingham, an obscure Labour MP who was, I think, a journalist for the Daily Mirror. He was as obscure then as he is now. He was expelled from the House of Commons in 1947 for saying that MPs were unable to vote properly because they were drunk. He was called to the Bar of the House and expelled. So disciplinary procedures were in place then, and a precedent was set, but not on the basis of criminal activity. The bar was set much lower, and he was expelled on the ground that he had upset the sensibilities of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

I have grave concerns about the efficacy of introducing primary legislation at the end of this Parliament, because to do so fails to take on board the fact that there has been a significant amount of incremental reform, both administrative and legislative, in this Parliament. For example, we now elect the Chairmen of Select Committees and, from within party caucuses, Select Committee members. The power of the Whips is now much less acute than it was even five years ago. And of course we elect the Speaker.

The idea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park that 100% of MPs vote 100% of the time is palpable nonsense. I am a walking, talking example of that fact, and the reason I behave in that way is that I was never consulted over the coalition agreement. I was elected as a Member of Parliament on the basis of the Conservative manifesto. When my principles coincide with those expressed in the coalition agreement, I will vote with the Government; otherwise, I will not. We now have something akin to a Regency Parliament, in that we have collections of different interests, and Members voting as they see fit. The idea that we are all ciphers and automata who toe the party line is complete nonsense. We have also made reforms to the Standards and Privileges Committee.

I believe that this legislation would undermine parliamentary sovereignty. It would undermine the sacred bond of faith and trust that exists at election time between Members of Parliament and their electors, and it is nonsense to suggest that that would not be a problem. I simply think that we are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The reason that people feel disempowered and alienated from politics is that they do not feel that politics matters to their lives, because decisions are taken by supranational bodies such as the European Union, by obscure far-away bodies including quangos such as the Highways Agency and the Environment Agency, and by big local government, which is seen as a self-perpetuating elitist cartel. That is the reason; it is not because they think all MPs are liars, cheats and thieves, although a lot of them do. Actually, that is not even as simple as one might think, because they think everyone else’s MP is a liar and a cheat and a thief, but theirs is a charming young man who came and opened their summer fete last year, and who is trustworthy, decent and a great person.

[Nick de Bois]

Not that young.

[Mr Jackson]

Yes, not that young in some cases.

I also take issue with the comments of the hon. Member for Rhondda—who is not in his place at the moment but who is a gifted historian whose book on the history of Parliament I have read—that a party caucus chooses a Member of Parliament, not the electorate. That is a very arrogant and disdainful attitude. An election is like a jigsaw puzzle, and every single piece is a part of that puzzle, and when it all comes together that is the beauty of democracy. That is not for party caucuses.

Bad’uns have always existed in politics, whether it is Sir Charles Dilke, Horatio Bottomley or many other Members of Parliament. Bad’uns get elected as well as get thrown out. We only have to think of someone such as Oswald Mosley in the 1930s. Essentially, I believe in the wisdom of crowds. I believe in the sanctity of that bond between the electors at the general election. That is the recall process: an election where there is perfect competition and perfect knowledge by the voters to understand the record, vision, policies and principles of a prospective Member of Parliament.

[Mr Burrowes]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s wisdom and understanding of political history, but, on history, may I take him back to February 2008, when he joined me and 26 other hon. Friends, part of the 2010 intake, in a letter to The Daily Telegraph? The letter stated that recall

“would increase MPs’ accountability, address some of the frustration felt by a disenchanted public and help restore trust in our democratic institutions.”

If that was right in 2008 and right in our 2010 manifesto, why is it not right now?

[Mr Jackson]

My hon. Friend is such a decent and generous gentleman that he did give me notice yesterday that he would ambush me in this way, and I thank him and have an enormous amount of respect for him, but I have changed my mind, as I have changed my mind on many things over the years. I have changed my mind on House of Lords reform, for instance. I think it ludicrous that we have an upper Chamber that is the largest unelected body outside the people’s congress of China, and believe that should be reformed, even though I am a Conservative, of course. So I have changed my mind on that.

I have looked at the details of the Government’s Bill and I accept that it does make that distinction between moral conscience issues and policy issues and real issues of misdemeanours and criminal conduct.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I suppose the worst case scenario with the Government’s Bill is when somebody does something that the public regard as pretty serious, yet which neither leads to a custodial sentence, as many noxious things do not, nor to a suspension of a sufficient number of days, and we are left with the public feeling cheated by a recall Bill that did not deliver what they would have expected.

[Mr Jackson]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, but I come back to a central issue that was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) about the split between the Executive and the legislature. I believe one of the lessons of the expenses disaster was the failure of the Executive properly to embrace the Freedom of Information Act, openness and transparency at an early stage across all parties, and what we see here is the sins of the Executive being visited on the legislature and Back Benchers.

The concept of the Executive facing up to their own responsibility is long past, with Peter Carrington’s resignation as a result of the Falklands invasion and, for those who can remember their constitutional history, Crichel Down in 1954, when the Minister of Agriculture, who I believe was Sir Thomas Dugdale, resigned as a result of a piece of land, the sale of which was mishandled by his Department. Ministerial responsibility for the Executive is much less in fashion than it ever used to be. What we are being asked to do today, particularly with the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), is take to the nth degree the accountability of the individual Back Bencher, and therefore I do think there is an asymmetrical approach. The merit of the Government’s Bill is that at least it adequately formalises the sanctions around criminal misbehaviour and malfeasance, taking into account the reforms, openness and transparency that have been in place since the expenses crisis.

[Nick de Bois]

Is my hon. Friend not highlighting the case for the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)? He referred to Ministers being accountable for their actions in the past. The amendments introduce accountability to the people, whereas the Bill talks about accountability to the Houses of Parliament.

[Mr Jackson]

Again, I have enormous respect for my hon. Friend, but my big concern about the amendments is mission creep. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) made the point that it seems peculiar to establish in legislation, by the incorporation of those amendments, a system that we expressly do not want to be enacted. It is like saying, “We are just putting it in place just in case circumstances arise where we have to use”—

[Zac Goldsmith]

I think that everyone here who believes in the recall of MPs would like to see a system that is not used a great deal. None of us wants to see MPs slung out of this place on a daily basis. The idea is that the threshold is low enough that it is possible to achieve in extreme circumstances but high enough that it cannot be abused in the way that many Members in this House fear it might be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

I understand. Let me put it on the record that my hon. Friend is a decent, diligent and caring Member of Parliament who wants to see this House improved and its reputation enhanced. I have never resiled from taking that view and his motives are not ignoble. None the less, we may have mission creep, whereby powerful groups, elites and well-funded individuals and organisations may use those particular mechanisms to oust Members with whom they bitterly disagree. Again, I will call on examples from the past. I ask the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) whether his illustrious predecessor, John Hume, the Member for Londonderry, would have taken the same very brave and principled decisions against people in his own community and the other community in Northern Ireland were he subject to the vagaries and the vicissitudes of a recall process? That is an open question.

[Mark Durkan]

I worked for John Hume as his Westminster assistant for many years, and the truth is that he would have taken the same decisions. Nothing would have dissuaded him from his course. He came under great pressure not from his constituency but from the media and all sorts of establishments, and he stuck that course with the support of the people of Derry come what may.

[Mr Jackson]

I defer to the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge. Of course John Hume was greatly liked and respected in this House, but that does not mean that vexatious, pernicious and dangerous elements would not have sought to remove him using a recall process. None of us knows the answer.

In conclusion, the Government’s Bill is not perfect, but something that most people could possibly support. I will argue passionately and cogently against the amendments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, although I accept his bona fides in wanting to improve this Bill. We are pushing at an open door here. There is the danger that we will open a Pandora’s box. American congressmen can never really look at the big picture, because as soon as they are elected they are fundraising every two years. They can never really look at the strategic overview for their country, district, county or state. I suspect that something like that might happen with the recall process here in that we will be constantly looking over our shoulders at the mad, bad and dangerous to know, the pernicious and vexatious, which is why I will abstain on Second Reading and argue vigorously against the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is right. That is why, although I will reflect on what I have heard today—I am less sure than I was about supporting the amendments —my opinion is still that we should trust the public. We want the public to trust us, and we need to trust them. However, we need to ensure that we do not allow a tiny minority of the public to use recall in a way that most people, even in the area concerned, regard as untoward and unreasonable, simply because it is there and they feel they can use it. If that small minority are feeling powerless and think that their voice is not being heard, they will pick up whatever instrument is to hand and seek to use it to propagate their case, which they no doubt feel strongly about. That balance is what we are agonising about today.

I try to look at this from the perspective of the public outside. They will wonder why we are putting so many barriers in the way of their deciding to exercise a right of recall and remove people from this place. As Chair of the Education Committee, I am reminded that so many teachers, or certainly the teaching unions, appear to go to such lengths to protect the worst-performing teachers in the system even though, in every case, the teacher who is idle, has low standards or fails their pupils undermines morale in the staff room and all the hard work of most teachers in the school, and those elsewhere who do so much to prioritise teachers. However, standing here in this Chamber, I guess I can recognise the sense of, “If they come for one, they may come for all.” A certain paranoia runs through us.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

My hon. Friend is making a strong speech. I think that the answer to his reasonable question as to why some of us are challenging the received wisdom is that, to the best of my knowledge, we have not heard an example of a Member—someone who makes laws in this House—who is a criminal who has not been subject either to disciplinary proceedings or to a criminal sanction in the past 10 to 20 years. I have not heard any such example.

[Mr Stuart]

My hon. Friend made a powerful speech. At the heart of the issue is whether the public, with no prior wrongdoing having been proved, can be trusted to use this power without it being abused in order to challenge Members on matters of conscience. I do not often speak up for the Liberal Democrats, but in this Parliament our coalition partners took an unpopular decision on tuition fees as part of a coalition agreement that they thought was in the national interest. Members representing university towns may have taken that decision even though they stood on that manifesto pledge. Following this debate, I am going to have to wrestle with the idea of whether I am confident that the proposed process would not have been used to turf out those MPs for doing what they thought was right. It would be terrible if the fear of recall were to influence not how Members treat their constituents or work on their behalf, but how they vote. That goes to the heart of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

We have had an impassioned debate and I am very grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions. I will do my best in the time remaining to address as many of the points raised, but I think that will prove challenging.

As we have seen, there are many different views on ways in which we ought to hold MPs to account. For some, this does not require a recall system at all. For others, a recall system should be available on any grounds and at any time. All three parties committed to a recall system in their manifestos and it was included in the coalition’s programme for government. MPs are elected to serve a term of five years and we believe they should continue to have the freedoms to carry out their job and make difficult decisions where necessary. However, the Government think it important to fill a gap in the current accountability of MPs by providing assurance that where an MP has been found guilty of serious wrongdoing—whether serving a prison sentence for committing a crime or a long period of suspension from the House for breaching the MPs code of conduct—the public will have a chance to have their say on whether the MP should continue to represent them.

It would be a much better situation if there were no instances of wrongdoing that engage the triggers in the Bill, but where MPs commit serious wrongdoing, whether in the eyes of the law or the House of Commons, under the Government’s Bill they will be subject to a recall petition, We hope we have struck a middle ground by providing sensible and balanced proposals for a recall mechanism aimed at addressing wrongdoing. Our proposals aim to provide a robust, fair and open process that is suitable for our system of parliamentary democracy.

In the time that remains, I will try to address some of the comments, concerns and criticisms that were raised. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), in the Opposition’s opening and summing-up speeches, referred to cash for questions. I think the suggestion was that cash for questions would not be covered under the Government’s proposals. That is not correct. Cash for questions would clearly constitute a breach of the code of conduct. It would therefore be perfectly in order for the Standards Committee to consider the matter and recommend a duration of suspension that could lead to a recall.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) made a number of points. He suggested that the Bill sets back democracy because its scope is too narrow. That is not the Government’s view. The concerns we have about his proposals—this point was not picked up by him, or by any of the supporters of his proposals—relate to the 5% petitions: the initial stage where, as far as I understand it, people or campaigns could spend as much as they wanted on drumming up support that could then be transferred or translated into the starting point of the petition process. That issue needs to be addressed and he did not respond to it. As I understand it, when he and colleagues had an initial discussion on this, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) raised the need to address it because he had identified that it was a problem in the Californian system. As I understand it, this is not a matter that has been addressed in the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Richmond Park.

The hon. Gentleman referred repeatedly to the threshold of 14,000 or 15,000 people to achieve the 20%. That is true, but I think that in most constituencies the process of initiating the 5% petition—the indication of the need for a petition—will be used again and again, rather than people necessarily raising the 20% required for a referendum.

The hon. Gentleman said that we are all susceptible to the pressures of newspapers. That is exactly the point about how the process of starting the initial petition, the indication of the 5%, will be used. He referred to the fact that in America recall has apparently been used only 40 times in the past 100 years. However, the figures I have are that in 2014 alone, and in California alone, there have been 30 recall petitions initiated at different levels of government. It is not a process that happens only once in a while; it happens regularly. He also challenged the Government’s estimate that a constituency referendum would cost about £90,000. If he has a different figure, I would like to see it, but I stand by ours.

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised an interesting point about whether courts would give an MP a lesser sanction than others found guilty of a similar offence. On the contrary, I wonder whether they might not impose a higher sanction.

The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) made a balanced and sensible contribution. He thinks that perhaps MPs have lost respect because we have given too many powers away, but often one of people’s greatest concerns about Westminster is that we are holding on to far too many powers, as opposed to giving too many away—or at least that we are not giving powers away in the right places by pushing down the decision-making process.

The hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell) referred rather disparagingly to Westminster grandees and the lay people on the Standards Committee. I should perhaps declare an interest in that I know one of the lay people, Sharon Darcy, who is also a leading light in my local citizens advice bureau, and in no way is she a Westminster grandee, and nor would she have her views pressurised by anyone in this place, be they Whips or anyone else. He also drew some parallels between trusting a jury and trusting the electorate, but my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton), who is no longer in his place, intervened to point out that there must be something to answer for before reaching the jury stage, which is not the case in relation to the proposals from the hon. Member for Richmond Park.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

Last weekend, in response to the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell), the Prime Minister agreed that the Government would look at the amendments, yet the Deputy Leader of the House seems to be setting his face against them. Do the Government intend to table amendments accepting the central premise of the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)?

[Tom Brake]

Both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have indicated that the Bill could be improved and that we are willing to listen to proposals, but that does not necessarily mean adopting the proposals from the hon. Member for Richmond Park.

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said we were better off trusting our own constituents. Like all Members, of course I trust mine, but it is not the constituents who are the issue; it is the campaign groups and vexatious individuals who might decide to launch repeated recall petitions with no basis, as opposed to challenging MPs because they have committed serious wrongdoing.

The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil)was worried that people who had been detained in a police station might be caught by the Bill. Clearly, that would not be the case in any circumstances. The word “detention” is designed to capture circumstances where an MP, having been convicted and sentenced, is ordered to serve their sentence somewhere other than in a prison—for example, a young offenders institution or a hospital.

I welcome the very rational comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) on the EU and immigration—I am just sorry they will not do him any good. I wonder, however, whether in three years he might not feel that it is his party that has deserted him and that instead of him leaving his party, he should stay put and other people should move to another party.