Southend (City Status)
Mark Harper Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
It is tempting to begin by saying, “With an offer like that, how can one possibly refuse?” However, I will have to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), at least on the immediate offer to be Southend’s Valentine.
The Government have noted with pleasure the considerable interest of towns throughout the United Kingdom in entering the competition for city status to mark the Queen’s diamond jubilee in 2012. My hon. Friend has certainly used his opportunity to explain to the House the considerable merits of Southend, and that is entirely understandable. Clearly, if he ever ceases to be a Member of Parliament, he will be able to get a job as a senior tourism officer for his borough, given that he set out a kaleidoscope of things it has to offer. Other hon. Members will have noted this Adjournment debate and those whose constituencies are bidding for city status will doubtless seek an opportunity of their own, so you will have many more interesting bids to hear about, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend used this opportunity not only to set out Southend’s case for city status, but to remind us that Southend provides a number of training opportunities for Olympic teams. He used this debate to set those out and remind other countries of the opportunities for them in his constituency.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand the reason why I have to disappoint him, which is that Ministers must remain impartial in this competition. Indeed, during Prime Minister’s questions the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) tempted my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to support the campaign for Ballymena in County Antrim to win the competition. Although my right hon. Friend recognised the powerful case that had been made, he, too, had to remind an hon. Member that Ministers must remain neutral. That is the reason why I have to decline my hon. Friend’s kind invitation on this Valentine’s day.
The reason fairness is so crucial in this competition is that this competition does not have any criteria in the usual sense of that word. City status continues, in this country, to be an honour granted by the sovereign—nowadays, following a competition—as a rare mark of distinction. Reasons for success or failure in these competitions are never given, and city status is not and never has been something that towns claim by ticking off a list of hard and fast criteria. The reason for that is fairly obvious. As we see when we look at a list of cities, any attempt to draw up a list of criteria would run into difficulties immediately. Some cities in the UK are large and some are small. Some have conspicuously attractive and well laid out city centres, whereas that applies less to others. Some have wonderful cathedrals, universities, airports, underground systems or trams, and some may lack those physical features, but boast a vibrant cultural life. My hon. Friend not only drew attention to the physical characteristics of his borough, but spent some time setting out its cultural attractions.
Mr Amess
Will my hon. Friend allow me to add something? I forgot to say that when Southend approached me about the bid, I immediately said, “Fine, but we don’t have a cathedral.” We have a number of churches that could perhaps be cathedrals, but will my hon. Friend confirm that a town does not need a cathedral to become a city?
Mr Harper
I can confirm that. There is no checklist of criteria that people can tick off to qualify. The guidance for entries to the competition is on the diamond jubilee pages of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport website. It lays out the type of information that towns bidding in the competition should include. They should give a flavour of the town and should lay out its interesting features and why it should become a city, as my hon. Friend has done this evening. The Government have said that we would like city status—and a lord mayoralty or lord provostship under the parallel competition among existing cities—to be conferred on a vibrant, welcoming community with an interesting history and a distinct identity. Those are the characteristics we have set out, but there are no hard and fast criteria. It is for towns to put together bids that spell out what makes them special.
If a town considers that it deserves to be granted city status, it should look at the guidance on the Department’s website, and if it confines its case to the broad limit of 100 pages set out in the guidance its entry will be welcome. All valid entries received by the closing date of 27 May 2011 will be carefully and fairly assessed on their merits. The Government look forward to receiving strong entries from a variety of local authorities, including Southend, and to announcing the new city in early 2012.
My hon. Friend said that his mother Maud is a champion of Southend’s bid for city status and that she will celebrate her 99th birthday soon. Whatever happens with Southend’s bid, I look forward with him to his mother’s receiving a communication from Her Majesty the Queen on her 100th birthday in 2012. So, whatever happens, there will be something to celebrate in Southend for my hon. Friend and his mother Maud.
Question put and agreed to.
Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill
Mark Harper Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), my constituency neighbour, on introducing this private Member’s Bill. She has been in the House of Commons for only a brief time, but has already secured a place in the ballot for private Members’ Bills significantly higher than I ever achieved—I never got into the top 20—and significantly higher than many other hon. Members. I am grateful to her for introducing a measure that has engaged Members on both sides of the House in a thoughtful way.
The West Lothian question is the backdrop to my hon. Friend’s Bill. Of course, calling the problem the West Lothian question makes it sound somewhat obscure to most voters. We had a go at rechristening it the English question, but that never seemed to work, so I shall use the old nomenclature. My hon. Friend wants to tackle the question, and she and I have discussed it, after which she has looked at her proposals and improved them. I am not sure that the Bill is exactly as the Government would wish, so at the end of my remarks, particularly because of the complexities involved, I shall test the opinion of the House. However, if the Bill goes into Committee, I look forward to working with her constructively to improve it.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House raised a number of issues. It is worth going into the background and being clear about what we are talking about when we talk about legislation that affects different parts of the UK. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) picked up something that my hon. Friend said when she talked about legislation that affects different parts of the United Kingdom. He referred to parts of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill—I am sure that Members are waiting with bated breath to debate it again next week—that affect Wales. There is a distinction between legislation that affects different parts of the country and legislation under which decisions are reserved to Westminster and are properly not taken by the devolved Assemblies, which are different things. This House can legislate for things where the decisions are reserved here, as the hon. Gentleman said.
For example, there are electoral matters which, although decisions on them may affect only Wales, are reserved to the Secretary of State. In those cases, one could perfectly happily conclude that it was quite right and proper for every Member of this House to vote on such decisions, even though they affected only Wales. There are also cases where it has been decided that decisions should be devolved—in this case to the Welsh Assembly—and that this House should not legislate on them. Members may well want to make a distinction in those cases, because they might not think it proper for the whole House to vote on the equivalent decisions that affected only England. The argument would be that in Wales, for example, it is Welsh Assembly Members who are taking those decisions, whereas in England, Welsh MPs should not be making the same decisions for English constituents when they do not play that role in their own constituencies. It is the asymmetry in these debates that causes some disquiet in England. It is not so much the fact that, in this example, Welsh MPs would be voting on issues that affected only England; it is the fact that English MPs have no say on the same issues in Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire ran through a number of potential solutions. She also noted—as did a number of other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg)—that one solution to the English question posited by the previous Government was to introduce some kind of regional devolution. She noted that this solution had been rejected decisively in the north-east. Indeed, the neighbouring constituencies that the two of us represent highlight that very well. There is a lot in common between Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire, yet we are both in different Government office regions and different regions for the European Parliament. We have neighbouring constituencies, yet there is quite a significant dividing line between some of the ways in which we represent our constituents. How we would divide up England would therefore not be a straightforward matter, as the previous Government found, and as any future Government would also find.
In setting out the intention behind her Bill, my hon. Friend was keen to avoid any danger that the Speaker would be drawn into controversy. It is fair to say that Mr Speaker is not known for courting controversy of any kind, and I am sure that he would very much welcome her intention to ensure that he did not inadvertently get drawn into any.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) made an interesting suggestion, which will have been noted, for effectively abolishing Members of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly, and instead having just Members of Parliament with different roles. That is an idea, but given where we start from, I am not sure that it is achievable. It may have been a good solution in the pre-devolution era, but given that those devolution settlements were set up and approved by the people in referendums, I am not sure that it is possible.
My right hon. and learned, and eternally youthful Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) proffered his East Lothian answer to the West Lothian question. He drew attention to the fact—this is a critical point—that, with the three devolution settlements, a large number of Members of Parliament now represent parts of the United Kingdom with a devolved Parliament or Assembly. That is an important issue that this House needs to deal with. He put forward a solution involving, effectively, a requirement for a double majority on the Second and Third Readings of Bills, and it would certainly be worth while for the commission that the Government will set up to consider that.
My right hon. and learned Friend also referred to the concerns raised by Vernon Bogdanor, who, as the hon. Member for Rhondda pointed out, is my old politics tutor. Professor Bogdanor taught politics not only to me but to the Prime Minister. I am not sure what the Prime Minister would say about this, but I know that the professor and I have both come to the conclusion that neither of us has managed to persuade the other of anything much that we believe. He and I had a debate on the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, and, when I was giving evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, I drew attention to the concerns that he had raised. I subsequently received a communication from him that broadly confirmed that I have still not managed to persuade him of anything. I did not persuade him of much in my essays at university and he did not persuade me of his views.
Mr Harper
That is an interesting question. This is one of the key differences—not the only one—between me and the Prime Minister. He got a first, but I only got a 2:1, which probably explains why he is the Prime Minister and I am just the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington made several good points. Despite the attempts by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) to put my right hon. and learned Friend’s name forward to serve on the commission that we will set up, I noted carefully that he declined the opportunity, saying that he would be happy to give evidence to it.
Chris Bryant
I hope that I am not breaking a private confidence when I say that Vernon Bogdanor told me that he thought that the Minister, when he was his student, was very clever and bright and clearly destined for greater things, but that it was a shame that he had fallen among thieves of late.
Mr Harper
I have just looked at the expression on you face, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I think that I am going to be generous and describe the hon. Gentleman’s use of the word “thieves” as an attempt at humour. I do not think that it was a very successful attempt, but this is perhaps the best way to get him out of the difficulty that he might otherwise have got himself into.
Mr Chope
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) is champing at the bit to give evidence to the commission. Will the Minister tell us when it is going to be set up, so that my right hon. and learned Friend can do that? I hope that it can be within weeks, rather than months.
Mr Harper
If my hon. Friend can wait just a little longer, I will come to that important point.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire had talked about the Welsh Grand Committee, and the hon. Member for Rhondda made a very telling comment—I am sure that he will correct me if I did not hear him correctly—when he leapt to his feet and said that the Committee was otherwise known as the Welsh grandstanding Committee. I think that that is what he called it; he is not demurring. He said that if that was the solution, we were not asking the right question. I wanted to ensure that I had heard him correctly, and to put on record that he thinks the Welsh Grand Committee is a grandstanding Committee. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will bear his opinion in mind when Welsh Labour Members are making bids for issues to be considered by the, as he called it, Welsh grandstanding Committee. I am sure that she will find his intervention extremely helpful.
Ian Paisley
I am slightly confused. Did the hon. Member for Rhondda mean that it was a grand Standing Committee or a grandstanding Committee?
Mr Harper
In view of what I think the hon. Member for Rhondda was saying about the way in which the Committee had behaved from time to time, I think he was making it clear that he felt it was a Welsh grandstanding Committee. I think that it is helpful to get that point on to the record.
Chris Bryant
Well, this is a grand debate, isn’t it? The truth is that, all too often, the Welsh Grand Committee has been a pretty futile body. It is all the more futile when the Government give it matters to discuss that its members do not want to discuss, and when those decisions are made only by the Government and not by the Committee’s members.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I have let this run a little bit, but I think that we should now return to the Bill. This is not a debate about the Welsh Grand; it is a debate about the hon. Lady’s Bill, and I would like the Minister to return to that subject.
Mr Harper
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I detected that the House probably felt that that part of the debate had run its course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) made a powerful speech in favour of the Union, but he cautioned about the reason why we should answer the West Lothian question. He noted that in last year’s general election, the Conservative party had a majority of seats in England and that if our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had not led in such a bold fashion to put together this coalition, an alternative might well have caused a constitutional crisis. That suggests how important it is for the Government to deal with this issue now. It is better to deal with the question and provide a possible solution, however complex that may be, in an atmosphere of relative calm rather than to solve it hurriedly in an atmosphere of crisis. I hope that all those of a Unionist inclination—probably every Member in the House today—will agree that it is better to look at these matters sensibly and implement solutions calmly rather than wait for the crisis to happen, when significant pressure might come from English voters to solve the problem, making it more difficult to resolve it calmly and sensibly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South referred to the opportunity cost of doing nothing, which might ultimately put the Union at risk. He ran through a number of what he called “perfect”—perhaps better described as “tidy”—solutions, but noted that there were good reasons to believe that they would not work. He suggested—I think it was the same conclusion as that put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington—that there is no single tidy solution, but that a number of imperfect solutions could deal with the nub of the issue. I believe that a number of my hon. Friends reached the same conclusion.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) also rightly drew attention to the fact that there is no simple solution. He ran through a number of solutions and noted some concerns about them, including about the solution of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, which my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset believed might face some difficult procedural problems. His key point was that people must think that any proposed solution is fair—fair to all parts of the United Kingdom. He also flagged up the potential risk of an election result in which a majority party in England was not the same as the Government at Westminster. He correctly put his finger on the fact that that would indeed constitute a risk to the Union. He argued in favour of a classic British fudge, suggesting that a party that did not have a majority in England but was in government at Westminster would need a self-denying ordinance. Perhaps some solutions could be put in place along those lines. All the issues show how complicated the problem is.
The Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire puts forward a number of solutions. There are two new duties on any Minister publishing legislation in draft. Clause 1 deals with the first duty, which is to
“ensure that the legal and financial effect of that legislation on each part of the United Kingdom is separately and clearly identified.”
The second duty, in clause 3, is to “make a statement” that the Bill is
“compatible with the principles of legislative territorial clarity, or”
if the Bill is not compatible with them, to make a similar statement where
“the government nonetheless wishes to proceed.”
This is my hon. Friend’s attempt, I think, to set out clearly in the Bill that the Government must make those judgments so that the Chair would not be drawn into controversy. The principles of legislative clarity are set out in clause 4, which states that
“every citizen of the United Kingdom has the right to see how proposed changes to the law will affect them”
and that hon. Members of this House
“have the right to see how proposed changes to the law will affect their constituents.”
I believe those are sensible principles, but I hope to persuade the House and my hon. Friend that her Bill is not necessarily the best way of advancing those objectives.
My hon. Friend has sensibly made the Bill apply only to draft legislation, to preserve the independence of Parliament from the courts, and to protect its exclusive cognisance. Had she attempted to set down in legislation how actual Bills were presented to the House, that might have opened up the opportunity for courts to involve themselves in our legislative procedures. She has avoided that danger, but the flipside is that her Bill will affect only draft legislation and, therefore, it will not affect every Bill brought to the House. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset highlighted an alternative, non-legislative solution, which is to deal with such matters in the Standing Orders of the House. He also noted the difficulties in that approach, such as not being able to entrench the provision.
By mirroring the provisions in section 19 of the Human Rights Act, which requires Ministers to make a statement of compatibility with the convention, the requirement under clause 3 of the Bill is carefully drafted so as not to fall foul of the exclusive cognisance principle. The duty is on Ministers, rather than being a legislative requirement. The flaw is that the Bill imposes requirements on Government that are already in place and with which the Government should comply. As has been noted, the Cabinet Office’s “Guide to Making Legislation” already provides that the territorial extent and application of legislation should be set out in a statement at the beginning of the explanatory notes, in whatever form of words is appropriate to the Bill. In addition, it provides that where a Bill makes different provision for the different nations of the United Kingdom, that should be outlined in the explanatory notes, setting out the territorial extent of each part of the Bill separately if necessary.
Harriett Baldwin
I thank the Minister for his perceptive comments about what I have tried to avoid in drafting the Bill. I am glad that he accepts that the principles of the Bill are sound, even if its wording might be modified by the Government in Committee, which I would welcome. The Bill moves civil service guidance on to a statutory footing, thus strengthening the whole process.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. It comes back to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset that the Bill does nothing harmful, but nor does it take us much further forward. I start from the position, as do the Government, that we should not legislate for unnecessary matters that do not add anything.
Chris Bryant
A clear example is to be found in the explanatory notes to the next Bill that we will consider. In relation to the territorial extent and application, the notes state:
“The Bill extends to (that is, forms part of the law of) England and Wales. The terms of clause 1, however, mean that it will only take effect within England.”
Often, there is not the clarity that an ordinary person might want and seek, even when we put something on the face of a Bill.
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the fact that, even when something is required, it is not always executed brilliantly. Even if the requirements in the Cabinet Office guidance on drafting legislation were put into statute, that would not necessarily mean that they would be better executed than they are currently.
In practice, the financial aspects of the Bill would also have little consequence, because the present arrangements already require all new UK-wide legislation to specify the financial impact and to be drafted within a Department’s existing funding plans. Therefore, no new Barnett financial consequentials would arise, as a matter of course. Bills that deal with reserved matters have no Barnett consequentials attached and do not have significant impact on different Administrations.
In relation to how legislation is drafted, the Bill does not take us much further forward. Effectively, it puts into statutory form what the Government currently intend and do, thus losing a little flexibility. However, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset put his finger on it when he observed that the West Lothian question is complicated. While the Bill may lead us to a potential solution, it may not be the one that the commission comes up with.
Finally, let me do what I was invited to do by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), and remind the House that the Government have made a commitment to set up a commission to examine the West Lothian question. Although the coalition parties approach the issue from different angles, they have made a common commitment to resolve the question. In the Conservative party manifesto, we promised to
“introduce new rules so that legislation referring specifically to England, or to England and Wales, cannot be enacted without the consent of MPs representing constituencies of those countries.”
The Liberal Democrats’ manifesto said that they would
“Address the status of England within a federal Britain, through the Constitutional Convention set up to draft a written constitution for the UK as a whole.”
Although the coalition parties came up with very different solutions to the West Lothian question, both parties consider it important to attempt to answer it, and neither party believes that it is possible to answer it by ceasing to ask it. We consider it a serious question that will be best tackled when we can tackle it in a calm and reasonable manner rather than waiting for a crisis.
I can confirm that we will set up the commission this year, as, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire established through her perceptive questioning. We had hoped to make announcements to the House at an earlier stage, but I look forward to making them in the not-too-distant future, and the commission will then be able to consider the ideas that have been advanced today. Hon. Members have effectively made bids to participate, either as members of the commission or in giving evidence to it. I hope that it will arrive at solutions that we can subsequently debate.
I urge my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire to withdraw her Bill, to participate in the commission in whatever way proves appropriate, and to continue to take part in this important debate. The Government are keen to answer the question and deal with this important matter, but I am not sure that my hon. Friend’s Bill provides the right way of going about it, and I think it right to test the opinion of the House.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I had not intended to speak in the debate, but I must say that I am disappointed that the Minister was not more forthcoming about the commitment in the coalition agreement to establishing a commission. As he and other Members have observed, this issue is extremely complicated, so why are we now delaying even the appointment of the people who will consider it? We have already delayed for far too long. The original commitment was that the commission would be established before the end of 2010, but the Minister now expects us to accept as a big deal the information that he will make an announcement before the end of this year.
One great virtue of the Bill is that if it is given a Committee stage, members of the Committee will be able to maintain pressure on the Government to fulfil their commitment to do something. The Minister tells us that the cost of doing nothing about it is putting the Union at risk, which is pretty serious stuff, but at the moment the Government are doing nothing about it.
I would not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on what I am about to say. Indeed, the reason I am able to speak after him is that he will not be able to comment on it. I think that the Deputy Prime Minister, who is in charge of my hon. Friend’s Department and is the person who can give the yea or nay to whether the commission is to be set up and when, has not got his heart in it. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell the Deputy Prime Minister that in the extra time that he will have next week, now that he has cancelled his trip to South America, he should give serious consideration to getting on with working out who will be on the commission and what will be its scope and remit. Surely the commission should be set up now, so that it can get to work before all the other stuff that is coming along is before the House. The last written answer on the issue says:
“Careful consideration is ongoing as to the timing, composition, scope and remit of the Commission to consider the… question.”
Some of us were not born yesterday. It is obvious that this is a stalling exercise by the Government. There was an unholy compromise in the coalition agreement but the Deputy Prime Minister is not even delivering on that compromise. He may realise that it could have implications for his party. There is no point, if the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have different views on the matter, trying to paper over the cracks. Why do we not get on and appoint the commission? Perhaps the coalition cannot even agree who could be on it, or what its scope and remit would be.
The written answer goes on to say that the commission
“will need to take account of our proposals to reform the House of Lords”.
Well, what has happened to those? We were told that a draft Bill would be published before Christmas. We have not seen that yet. We might be waiting another year or so before those proposals emerge.
The written answer goes on to say that the commission will need to take account of
“the changes being made to the way this House does business”.
There will be further changes to the way the House does business when the Backbench Business Committee is able to look at both Government legislation and Back-Bench business, and we are told that that will not start until the third year of this Parliament—another recipe for delay.
The written answer says that the commission will have to consider
“amendments to the devolution regimes”.
We know that a referendum will be held shortly in Wales, but why do we need to wait for the outcome of that before we set up the body that will look into these complex issues? There is then a reference to the fact that there is
“the Scotland Bill presently before the House”.
The written answer concludes; it is similar to what my hon. Friend the Minister has said today:
“We will make an announcement later this year.”—[Official Report, 31 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 549W.]
It does not even say that the commission will be set up later this year.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) for having a stab at what is an extremely complex issue. People perhaps more learned in the law than she is, such as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), had a go at the issue. More than 100 of us came to support him when his Bill had its Second Reading debate to ensure that it could get into Committee. It was then kicked into the long grass. That shows for how long the issue has been discussed.
I remain suspicious about the motives of the Deputy Prime Minister. I think that he is stalling seriously on the issue. If the Bill goes into Committee it will give all hon. Members the opportunity to keep the pressure on the Government to meet what was a pretty meaningless commitment in the coalition agreement anyway. At least it would be something.
Mr Harper
I know that my hon. Friend is not perhaps the most enthusiastic supporter of the coalition Government but I think that he sees mischief where there is none. The clear message from the thoughtful speeches of all Members today is that the issue is complicated. If the Government are to deal with it calmly and sensibly and in a manner that does not put the Union at risk, we must proceed thoughtfully and properly. However, I have given a clear commitment that we need to deal with the matter and answer the question. Therefore, I urge him to be a bit more generous in spirit.
Government Response to the House of Lords Constitution Committee's Report (Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill)
Mark Harper Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
The House of Lords Constitution Committee published its report on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill on 11 November 2010, immediately prior to Committee stage in this House.
I am pleased to inform the House that I have today laid before Parliament the Government’s response to the Committee’s report (Cm 8016). Copies are available in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office.
Mental Health Act 1983 (Repeal of Section 141)
Mark Harper Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
Section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983 sets out a process by which MPs are to vacate their seats if they have a mental health condition and are authorised to be detained under mental health legislation for a period of six months or more. The process involves the Speaker of the House of Commons receiving reports from registered medical practitioners. If the Speaker receives two such reports, six months apart, that the MP is in such detention, the Speaker lays both reports before the House of Commons and the MP’s seat automatically becomes vacant. Section 141 also applies in relation to the devolved assemblies with the presiding officer of each assembly performing the functions of the Speaker.
Although the provisions in section 141 have never been used, this section is symptomatic of an outdated attitude towards mental illness which is out of touch with the modern understanding of mental health. It treats mental ill health differently from physical ill health. It sends out the message that if you have a mental health condition, your contribution is not welcome in public life. That is a message this Government wish to change.
This Government agree with the all-party parliamentary group on mental health that section 141 should be repealed as soon as possible—a view endorsed by the Speaker’s Conference (on Parliamentary Representation) Final Report (2010) HC 239-1, paragraph 327.
We will introduce provisions to repeal section 141 at the earliest opportunity.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mark Harper Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
3. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on reform of the Act of Settlement.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
I have had no recent discussions with ministerial colleagues on reforming the Act of Settlement.
Alex Cunningham
I am no monarchist, but does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that, if we must have a monarchy, women should have equality with men in succession?
Mr Harper
Ministers have already accepted that the provision in the Act of Settlement might well be discriminatory, and I have already confirmed at the Dispatch Box when responding to a previous debate, not that we are doing nothing, but that discussions are under way with other countries of which Her Majesty is Queen. She is not just our Queen, but Queen of 15 other realms, and those matters have to be taken forward together in a careful and considered way. It is not as straightforward as the hon. Gentleman would like to pretend it is.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I welcome that response. As the Minister knows, my ten-minute rule Bill on that subject is to be introduced at 3.30 pm today. Will he confirm whether I could perhaps have that response in writing before the Bill is introduced?
Mr Harper
I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman’s speech introducing his Bill. Discussions are under way, as has been confirmed in this House and in the other place. He knows that the Statute of Westminster states that those matters must be amended in all the other realms of which Her Majesty is Queen, and it takes only a moment’s thought to see that that is not as straightforward a process as some who would wish to move more quickly might think.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
4. What progress he has made on plans to introduce a statutory register for lobbyists.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
My hon. Friend should know that the Government plan to carry out a wide-ranging consultation later this year and then to bring forward legislation in the second Session of this Parliament.
Rehman Chishti
Does the Minister agree that for the statutory register to be effective and fit for purpose, it must be robustly transparent?
Mr Harper
I do, and that is a very important point. Lobbying is a perfectly reputable industry for making sure that the voices of charities and businesses are heard, but it should be transparent so that people know who is talking to those in Parliament. That is what the Government intend to do—mainly to clean up the dreadful behaviour that we saw last year, which has resulted in some former Members having their passes removed.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The purpose of lobbying is to give further advantages to the already advantaged. Is the Minister not concerned that already lobbying has taken place between his Department and BSkyB which might have the most damaging consequences for the people of this country? Should not these reforms be brought in quickly by the Tory-Lib Dem junta?
Mr Harper
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation that all lobbying is to benefit the advantaged. Members are lobbied all the time by charitable organisations, charities and, as I found in my previous role in opposition, those who campaign on behalf of disabled people, for example. It is important, however, that such lobbying is transparent and that people know who is talking to Members of Parliament and members of the Government. That is exactly what our statutory register will achieve.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)
I applaud the Minister’s efforts, but will he consider proposals to shut the revolving door between big Departments and big business contractors, which leaves taxpayers ripped off and democracy diminished?
Mr Harper
Processes are already in place to vet what Ministers and former Ministers do after they leave both ministerial office and this House. My hon. Friend makes a good point, and those matters are being looked into and kept under review. I am sure that he will continue pressing that point in his usual vigorous way.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
Mark Harper Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jenkin
I survived, but I have to say that it is a very disappointing whirlpool, and that is no reflection on either my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) or my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg)—whichever was representing the whirlpool or the many-headed monster. However, if this is an opportunity to put some instability in the Bill, I will certainly support new clause 5 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. I have my name on it in any case.
I would echo the sentiment that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) expressed in an interesting speech in response to new clause 3. The question of constitutional Bills is an interesting innovation introduced by Lord Justice Laws, but I would tell my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset that Lord Justice Laws was merely including in his judgments something that had been widely understood by constitutional theorists for some time, although it had never been legally expressed in such terms. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiment and, indeed, with that of the hon. Member for Rhondda that Parliament should determine which of these laws is constitutional and overrides subsequent Acts of Parliament. Clearly, the European Communities Act 1972 was expressly intended to do that, as has been recognised by the courts, and the 1689 Bill of Rights does that, but Lord Phillips concluded in a recent case that the doctrine of implied repeal applies to the 1689 Act.
Mr Shepherd
The constitutional arrangements of Australia are a matter of written statute there, and I understand that the Governor-General exercised the prerogative power in the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. However, that is not what I am concerned about; I am concerned about our own constitutional processes. I think that the statement by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was misjudged, but he has never withdrawn it. He is a representative of the Government, and of the Crown itself, but as a Member of Parliament he has never withdrawn that statement.
My nervousness about the Bill is clear. I am nervous about the idea that two parties can mandate that their existence as a coalition should last for a term of five years. I have expressed that view before, and I think that it is shared by a number of Members. I have no doubt that the Lords will think that measure trivial in some ways, because it is a presumption; how can one mandate something that is formed by human beings with their own policies and parties? They can work together to a certain extent, but the coalition will last as long as the coalition lasts. I am not damning it; I am just saying that I do not think that they should have reached forward with a Bill of this nature. If they want to work in harness they will have the support of a great many Members of this House. We know that the nation is confronted with an economic crisis and difficult decisions have to be made. The people of this country are having to make difficult decisions on how to restore economic competence, balance budgets and all the rest of it.
We have spent a lot of time on the first matter, so I will now come to the real new clause, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, which I will undoubtedly vote for. His brevity today was extraordinary. [Laughter.] I do not laugh at it, for I think that the expression of great ideas is all the more effective for being expressed in a concentrated and condensed way. I appreciate that there is a drinks party at Downing street for Members from my party who want to attend, so I will bring my remarks to a close, as the great business of the Government must not be delayed by the musings of the House of Commons on such matters as constitutional reform.
I am standing up to support the limitations that are being expressed and the hesitations about the nature of the Bill. If there were one thing that I could argue for and effect, it would be that the Government themselves realise that they have a job. We salute them for that, but, when they fiddle with the constitution in ways that suit only their own purpose and stifle the natural functioning flow of politics, we lose something, and we lose the attention of our constituents. My argument is that we cannot march to a drumbeat like that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us the opportunity at least to raise our caveats, and I am grateful to the Labour party for indicating that it will support the new clause. It is important, and I commend it.
Mr Harper
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) for his generous opening remarks and, as usual, largely excellent speech. I say “largely”, because I do not entirely agree with his characterisation of the other place, given the behaviour not, I hasten to add, of their lordships’ House, but of a small number of former Labour MPs, who are filibustering and abusing every procedure of that House to try to frustrate the will of this elected House of Commons, which passed the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill by a considerable majority. Apart from that, I very much enjoyed my hon. Friend’s speech.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Deputy Prime Minister to have abused the Members of the House of Lords in the form that he chose?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
That is most certainly not a point of order for me. I am sure that there are other ways in which the hon. Gentleman can express his views, and I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister—like the Minister who is present—will be well aware of what has just been said. Please, Mr Harper, continue.
Mr Harper
I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that I drew a distinction between certain Members of the other place and the other place in general, about which I have no complaint.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset explained very clearly the effect of his new clause 3, and he was concerned about changes to clause 1 being made using powers in the Parliament Act 1911. It is already the case—this is a subject on which I agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—that the Parliament Act cannot be used to push through legislation that extends the life of Parliaments. One hon. Member—I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash)—pointed out that because of the Bill’s provisions allowing the Prime Minister to vary the date of an election by up to two months in an emergency, we cannot use the Parliament Act to push this legislation through against the wishes of the upper House. However, the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset would, as the hon. Member for Rhondda said, also prevent this House from reducing the length of a Parliament without the agreement of the other place. It does not seem desirable to put that provision in place.
Section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911, to which my hon. Friend’s new clause refers, sets out important rules about the relationship between this House and the other place. Those rules have been in place for some time, and the Government certainly do not intend to start changing that relationship. It is already the case that we cannot lengthen a Parliament, and given what I have said, we do not want to start changing the Parliament Act as my hon. Friend’s new clause would.
Chris Bryant
I presume that the Minister is therefore confirming that the Bill does lengthen a Parliament.
Mr Harper
No. It is very clear in the Bill. I do not think that the issue arose in Committee.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) also put his finger on this issue when he correctly drew attention to it in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. If my hon. Friend presses the new clause to a vote I shall ask hon. Members to oppose it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone, in speaking to new clause 5, said that the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill was about perpetual coalition arrangements. It is not about fixed-term Governments, but about the length of Parliaments. All it does is take away the Prime Minister’s power to dissolve a Parliament and bring it to an end. It replaces that right with two provisions that establish no-confidence procedures, which we have already, and give Parliament the opportunity to vote for an early Dissolution.
Mr Deputy Speaker
All I can say is that all the amendments and new clauses have been chosen in the right and proper way.
Mr Harper
Exactly; it is a very cunning new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone put his finger on the point that an amendment simply to take away clause 2 would have been a wrecking amendment. The power of revival is the cunning disguise in which the new clause is wrapped.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) described clause 2 as a fig leaf. I do not agree with that characterisation, but even if the House agreed with it, I am not sure that hon. Members would be as keen to remove the fig leaf as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex appeared to be. [Interruption.] No, that is what he said. He said that it was a fig leaf and that he wanted to remove it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone seemed to establish a new doctrine in his speech. He seemed to be suggesting that all Acts of Parliament should lapse at the end of a Parliament, just in case the new Parliament is of a different complexion and its Members disagree. He said that the House should not bind its successors. It is perfectly true that the House cannot bind its successors, because each successive Parliament can repeal Acts; that is the normal way. However, it is not the normal procedure for all Acts to lapse at the end of a Parliament, just in case the new Parliament disagrees with them.
The Government hope, although they cannot bind their successors, that the public and future Parliaments will find the arrangements in the Bill acceptable and will keep them in place. Future Parliaments are, of course, at liberty to change them. However, we do not think that there should be what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone described as a sunset clause to remove the powers. If clause 2 were removed as he suggested, it would effectively give back the power to the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament at will. We have argued throughout the passage of the Bill that that would be undesirable.
Chris Bryant
Many of us believe that the Prime Minister has that power even under the Bill, because all he has to do is table a motion of no confidence in his own Government, to which the Opposition would almost always agree, and there would be a general election. Be that as it may, I am sure that the Minister argued and voted for sunset clauses in relation to control orders, which, I understand, will expire next Monday. Is the same provision not necessary in this Bill?
Mr Harper
No; the Government’s intention is to change the system so that there are fixed-term Parliaments, apart from in the two possible cases set out in the Bill. We think that that is a desirable change. If the public and future politicians agree that it is desirable, it will stand the test of time. That is what we hope for and what we have argued for.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stone and for Harwich and North Essex raised concerns about the two procedures in clause 2—motions of no confidence and motions on early elections—that allow for early elections. However, the House of Lords Constitution Committee was fairly supportive of those measures.
The Committee said that it was
“sensible for the Bill to contain some form of safety valve which would allow for an early election in circumstances such as the government losing the confidence of the Commons or where a political or economic crisis has affected the country”,
and concluded that the safety valves that we had included were appropriate. The Committee also looked at the risk of the courts intervening, which my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex mentioned, and concluded:
“The risk that the courts may intervene in any early dissolution of Parliament by questioning the Speaker’s certificate is very small”,
adding:
“we do not consider the risk to be sufficient to warrant a rejection of clause 2 of the Bill.”
Based on what the House of Lords Constitution Committee has said, I, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, am confident that when this House approves the Bill, as I hope it will, and it is debated in their lordships’ House, they will give it proper scrutiny, but in the end give it a fair wind and pass it. However, if my hon. Friend presses his new clause 5 to a vote, I will urge all hon. Members to reject it and to keep clause 2 as it stands.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Chris Bryant
I suppose it would, but I am not in favour of five-year terms. Political events change at a dramatic pace these days and a five-year term would not meet that requirement. I suspect that such an arrangement would mean that Governments both here and in the devolved Administrations would more regularly be at the fag-end of their sense of having a mandate, and a four-year provision would be much better. I am sure that we shall return to this matter on Third Reading.
I have no desire to delay the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I think that I have made my point. In essence, it is that we believe it would be better to have a four-year fixed-term Parliament, because that would help us to avoid the elections for the devolved Administrations coinciding with the general election. We need change only one other measure to make sure that that never happens; we need to provide that we do not start the clock again when there has been an early general election. The Government’s intention is to try to make us fall into the rhythm of fixed-term Parliaments and not have lots of early general elections, and such a provision would give people an added incentive not to seek an early general election because they would know that they would then have only a short Parliament before the next general election, which would fall on the previously arranged date. Without any further do, I shall conclude and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Mr Harper
The amendments relate to the date of the election and it is worth touching on the points that a number of hon. Members have made about the coincidence of the proposed date of 7 May 2015 with the date of the devolved elections. It is worth saying, as we said in Committee, that it is entirely possible and, indeed, likely that, regardless of whether or not this Bill was introduced, the UK general election could have been held on the same day as those devolved elections if this Parliament had run for five years. In some sense, the Bill provides an opportunity, because it has highlighted and crystallised that fact at an early stage, when we have the chance to debate the consequences and do something about it.
As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, and as we discussed in Committee, I wrote to all the party leaders in the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament proposing to give their Assembly or Parliament the power to extend its term by up to six months. That was to go alongside the existing power to shorten the term by six months to provide a window of a year in which it could vary the date of the election to avoid that once-in-20-year coincidence with the Westminster election.
Dr McCrea
The Electoral Commission’s letter said that there was a
“need for a comprehensive research study on the implications of combining elections”
and that the Commission was “not aware” that that work had taken place up to the moment of writing. Has that research commenced?
Mr Harper
I heard very clearly what the hon. Gentleman said in his intervention on the hon. Member for Rhondda, and I was going to refer to that point anyway. Let me finish this part of my speech and I shall come on to that.
I wrote to the party leaders. They wrote back and I think it is fair to say that they were underwhelmed by the proposal to give the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament the opportunity to extend their term by six months to provide that one-year window. For that reason, the Government did not table an amendment on Report, as we had suggested that we might if the responses were more positive. The party leaders and Presiding Officers raised some other points, some of which the hon. Member for Rhondda has raised today, about alternatives. We are considering them and will write back to the party leaders as well as keeping the Opposition and the House informed. For the benefit of Members, I should say that copies of the letters that I have written have been placed in the Library of the House today.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful for the tone in which the Minister is responding to this part of the debate. For his information, his office sent me a letter by e-mail today, apparently responding to a letter I sent him on 21 December. It was in fact a letter about something completely different, so if he could arrange for the actual letter to be sent to me, I would be grateful.
Mr Harper
I replied to a letter that the hon. Gentleman sent to me. He might find—I can absolutely get him a copy—that the letter about the letter to the party leaders went to the shadow Secretary of State’s office today. I can make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets a copy directly and, as I said, I placed copies of those letters in the Library of the House.
The Electoral Commission’s letter made some sensible points about considering all the issues raised by combination. It seems to me that there are two kinds of issues: first, the practical delivery of elections—how we make the mechanics run—and, secondly, making combination easier. That is not just related to the devolved elections and those for the Westminster Parliament. The fact is that whether or not one agrees with the Government’s proposals, we are proposing elected police commissioners and some elected mayors, so there will be more elections and more of them will take place on the same day. Therefore, we need to make that easier. Another issue that came up in the debate, which is serious and valid, concerns the extent to which media coverage and so on means that two different conversations can be going on at the same time for different elections. That will obviously engage the political parties, broadcasters and people more widely.
The Electoral Commission’s suggestion is very good, but it has not taken place to date. The Government think there is some support for it, but given where we are in the timetable and given that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wanted to consider the experience of the combined elections in Northern Ireland this year, it might be a good idea to consider what happens with the referendum and elections in May—in only a few months’ time—and use that experience to kick off some project along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) once the Government have considered the suggestions from the party leaders. That might give us a possible route forward.
Chris Bryant
The Minister referred to elected police commissioners and more directly elected mayors. Will he confirm that they will all also be on four-year terms, rather than five-year terms? If he wanted to provide a little more tidiness—I can see him smiling, because he knows how this sentence will end—he could change this five-year fixed-term Parliament to a four-year Parliament, even if he only did it for after 2015.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister has said that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will monitor what happens with the elections that will take place this year. After he has done that, will there be close co-operation and consultation with the parties and the Electoral Commission to find the correct way of proceeding and learning from anything that goes wrong? Is that the suggestion?
Mr Harper
Yes, I have discussed this with my right hon. Friend and he intends, as we have discussed in Committee and announced to the House, to consider the experience from this year. We want to work with all the parties in Northern Ireland, just as I have written to all the party leaders in the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, to reach some agreement on what works well, what does not work and what needs to change. That will be very much on a cross-party basis.
Jonathan Edwards
I understand that the Deputy First Minister in Wales would prefer a five-year cycle for the National Assembly for Wales. Is that on the table for the Government?
Mr Harper
I will not start picking bits out of individual letters, but, given our debates in the House about preferences for four or five years, it is interesting that there have been suggestions from party leaders about moving the devolved Assemblies on to a five-year cycle. Given what has been said here and that the devolved Assemblies and Parliament were set up after considerable debate and have been on a settled model for some time, that would be a big jump and quite a change to the constitutional settlement.
Naomi Long
The Minister has talked about considering the context of the forthcoming Northern Ireland Assembly elections coinciding with the referendum campaign, but a better comparison would be the impact on the local government election campaign, in which the same range of parties will fight on very different issues. We need to consider this issue in that important context because the referendum campaign will not be party political in that sense and so is not directly comparable to running party political campaigns at the same time. The issue with running a general election campaign alongside an Assembly election campaign in Northern Ireland is that media coverage will focus on the general election campaign in a UK context, looking at parties that do not garner votes in the Northern Ireland context.
Mr Harper
The hon. Lady makes a good point. When the Deputy Prime Minister and I introduced the Bill, we said that a UK general election coinciding with a devolved legislature election would be qualitatively different from a referendum campaign coinciding with a devolved legislature election for the very reason that the hon. Lady says—there would be a narrative and a debate going on and there would be questions about whether the media, newspapers and broadcasters would fairly cover both parts of the debate and whether the public could therefore take properly informed decisions in both elections. We need to consider that issue with all the parties and broadcasters and see whether there are ways around it.
Let me address amendment 1, which my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) moved on behalf of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform. The intention of the amendment is to clarify that, in the event of an early general election—before 7 May—under subsection (1) or (2) of clause 2, the general election specified in clause 1(2) would not take place, but the Bill already makes it clear that the general election of 7 May 2015 would take place only if no intervening early general elections under the procedures in clause 2 had occurred. Clause 1 sets the date for the first scheduled general election, “subject to” clause 2—those words appear in the first subsection of the Bill’s first clause. If there were an early general election, it would replace the election of 7 May. The Select Committee has been very helpful in scrutinising the Bill and its amendments have brought about some good debates. Amendment 1 is good in that it has enabled this debate, but it is not necessary because the Bill is already clear.
Amendments 10 and 11, which the hon. Member for Rhondda spoke to, would mean that the parliamentary term following an early general election would last only for the remainder of the previously scheduled term. To use a phrase that the Committee used in its report, it would keep the clock ticking on the five years whether there was an early general election or not. There has been quite a lot of speculation among academics and others on whether that would act as a disincentive for a Government or strong Opposition to engineer an early general election because a new Government would get a term of perhaps only a few months. We did think about that, and we debated it in Committee. The flip side to that is that there is an election in which a Government get elected, perhaps with a significant majority, quickly followed by another election. That explains the Government’s choice of wording.
There is a technical problem with the amendments. An early election could take place just before the scheduled election but the scheduled election would still be held. The rules for the devolved assemblies provide a window, so that if the early election takes place very close to the scheduled election, the scheduled election does not take place. If the early election is more than six months before, the scheduled election still takes place. As the amendments are drafted, there could be an election only weeks before the scheduled election, and the scheduled election would still have to be held. That would not make a great deal of sense.
Chris Bryant
The Minister is right; that would be the eventuality. However, I think that would fly in the face of what in practice would happen politically, because some six to nine months before a general election people would choose not to bother to militate for an early general election—they would just accept that the next general election was coming. I understood that that was what the Minister was trying to achieve—fixed-term Parliaments.
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman was hypothetically pessimistic earlier. Now he takes the opposite approach: he is being hypothetically optimistic. The Government’s view was that we could have that early general election and the Government could be returned with a large majority, and we think the public would expect that Government to govern.
Interestingly, the Constitution Committee in the other place agreed with the Government’s approach. Its report concludes that a newly elected Government should have a full term of office, and that the Government would present its programme to Parliament through the Queen’s Speech, which, of course, is traditionally considered to be a test of confidence. We think that in that situation the Government should have the right to carry out their programme for the full five years, and it would make little sense to ask the voters to go back to the polls when they had sent out a clear message.
I accept that that is a debatable point—we had a significant debate in Committee—but let us look at it from the public’s end of the telescope rather than our own. If we were to have an early general election, because the Government had lost a confidence vote or because there had been a general sense that we should have an early general election, it would seem a little ridiculous if the public had made a clear choice, sent a Government into office with a significant majority, and then a few months later were back doing it all over again.
I think that, on balance, the Government’s decision and the current drafting of the Bill make sense. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, on behalf of the Select Committee, to withdraw his amendment 1 and I urge the hon. Member for Rhondda, just for once, to think about whether he really wants to press amendments 10 and 11 and potentially force the British people to undergo election after election in close succession—something which neither he nor I would want to achieve.
Simon Hart
I am much encouraged by the Minister’s comments and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3
Dissolution of Parliament
Amendment proposed: 8, page 2, line 29, leave out ‘17th’ and insert ‘25th’.—(Chris Bryant.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Sadiq Khan
The hon. Gentleman should explain why he has changed his mind in relation to his predecessor’s Bill. He will recall that there was insufficient time to allow the Bill introduced by his predecessor—a very good and honourable man—to receive proper debate in the House of Commons. The question that should be asked is why the hon. Gentleman has done a U-turn on that Bill. [Interruption.] The Whip, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), heckles me but if he wants to get to his feet, I am happy to take an intervention.
This sort of Westminster arrogance will not go down well in Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh. People in those places will remember the arrogant way in which the Deputy Prime Minister’s deputy, after a number of hours of debate on this issue on day one of the Committee, and after a number of Members had spoken, pulled from his pocket an option to allow devolved Assembly elections to be brought forward by up to six months in the event of their being scheduled at the same time as a general election. There was no consultation and no discussion with us or the devolved Administrations before that. We have heard how unhappy they are with this.
Mr Harper
The right hon. Gentleman knows, as I made clear at the time, that I announced that option in this House first because I thought it proper for Parliament to hear it first. I then wrote to all the party leaders. During the process, I have kept him informed, have placed copies of the correspondence in the House of Commons and have updated the House. At all stages, I have kept this House informed, as is the proper process.
Sadiq Khan
I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to intervene again. Is it not right that a number of colleagues had taken part in the debate and an amendment had been moved, and that it was only towards the end of the evening that he pulled the option out of his pocket?
Mr Harper
I was very keen to do something that the previous Government did not do often: I listened to the debate and to the concerns raised by Members on both sides of the Committee, and then announced to the House what I thought might be a sensible move forward. As I said on Report, colleagues in the devolved Parliament and Assemblies have written back to me to say that they are less than overwhelmed by my proposals. That is why we did not move them on Report. That was a perfectly sensible way to conduct matters.
Prisoners (Voting Rights)
Mark Harper Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I, too, wish you, Mr Benton, and all Members present a happy new year. I also wish myself a happy birthday, although I note that no one offered that unto me. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing the debate. It is right that we should have the debate here and, as several Members have said, that there should be a proper debate in the Chamber so that many of the issues can be elaborated at greater length, so I hope that that will happen.
I do not wish to disturb the equilibrium between myself and the Minister, but I must excoriate him slightly, because thus far there have been only written ministerial statements on the matter. The policy should have been announced in the Chamber, not by written ministerial statement, and I say that because the Minister said on 2 November 2010:
“when decisions have been taken they will be announced to the House at the Dispatch Box in the usual way.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 722.]
That is not what happened. A written ministerial statement was snuck out—I never know what the past tense of sneak is—or sneaked out.
Chris Bryant
Put out is less pejorative, and I want to be pejorative on this point. The statement was snuck out the day before Parliament adjourned for the Christmas recess. That is an inappropriate way to deal with Parliament, let alone with the politics of making a significant constitutional change in this country.
I am afraid that on this occasion I agree with neither my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), nor our new knight, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), whom I congratulate on his knighthood. I believe that the tradition that prisoners should be unable to vote is older than the Forfeiture Act 1870, because prior to that, the property qualification was so significant that, in practice, prisoners would have been unable to vote anyway. Merely referring to the 1870 Act, although that was the point at which the idea was qualified in statute, is irrelevant. It is an old tradition and a fine one. I think that when one forfeits the right to liberty, one should forfeit the right to vote.
However, I disagree with those who have said that we should leave the European Court of Human Rights. I think that David Maxwell Fyfe was a pretty odious Home Secretary, but I agree with those who argue that he did a good job at Nuremberg in trying to ensure that human rights were protected across Europe. It is difficult for us to argue with Russia that it should comply with the European Court of Human Rights in cases such as that of Sergei Magnitsky if we do not comply ourselves.
I also believe that the Government have been entirely wrong to gold-plate the provisions that are being brought forward. If the cut-off comes at four years, that will mean that people who have committed many very serious crimes, including violent crimes and crimes of a sexual nature, and electoral crimes for that matter, will be able to vote, which I think is inappropriate. That will mean that close to 30,000 people in prison will be able to vote. Notwithstanding the comments that other Members have already made, I think that there will be logistical problems in various areas in the country, which I will move on to in a moment.
The proposals are far more generous than the arrangements in other countries. The hon. Member for Kettering referred to several countries but not to Belgium, where the line is drawn at four months. I wonder whether the Government simply got the words “months” and “years” wrong, because opting for four months would allow them to comply with the Court. In Austria the requirement is one year. In France there is an element of judicial decision making on who gets the franchise—I think that the Government intend to introduce that here—as the court decides whether someone should be deprived of the right to vote as part of the sentencing. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) commented earlier on how the French approached the creation of the Court in the first place and that their system arose because the Napoleonic code had always stipulated that. Of course, 13 countries still have complete bans, although it must be said that they are not countries that we would hold up as exemplars of liberal and civilised societies that comply with human rights.
I have 10 questions for the Minister, although I realise that he may be unable to answer all of them. I hope that he will write to me on any that he is unable to answer today, as the deputy Prime Minister has not responded to any of the letters that we have written to him on the subject—it has been quite some time now and I am looking forward to those replies. First, the current prohibition on votes for prisoners was introduced through primary legislation in the Representation of the People Act 1983, and amended by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Can the Minister confirm that the amendments to statutes to enable prisoner voting will be done though primary legislation, rather than secondary legislation, so that it can be amended on the Floor of the House? Secondly, were we to proceed with a one-year ban, rather than a four-year ban, can he confirm that that would meet the requirements of the Court and that, therefore, the four-year ban is entirely of the Government’s choosing?
Thirdly, can the Minister confirm that more than 28,000 prisoners will be given the vote under the proposals, including around 6,000 who have committed violent crimes and 1,800 who have committed crimes of a sexual nature? Fourthly, the written ministerial statement states that prisoners will be able to vote in an area where they have a local connection. That seems, contrary to the remarks made earlier by several Members, to be a rather loose way of determining where they vote. What will happen if a prisoner wants to be registered in their prison, rather than in their home, or if they are registered in the place where they last lived but someone else is now living there? Frankly, they might not want someone who is serving time in prison to be registered to their home address. What provision have the Government made to ensure that that will not affect householders in their credit rating and in other ways? Will prisoners be entitled to anonymous registration, or will they be included in the electoral register, including details of their last known address, and what provisions will be made for candidates to be able to canvass prisoners?
As I understand it, the Government intend to allow judges to make specific recommendations on depriving people of the vote. On what grounds will a judge be entitled to remove the vote? Following the comments made by other Members, are there particular crimes that, while they might be subject to relatively short sentences of less than four years, should in all cases still see the perpetrator banned from voting? In particular, will the Government ensure that judges receive guidelines on when it will be expected that the vote be removed, and will those guidelines be made available when a Bill comes before the House? Will mentally disordered offenders or prisoners detained in mental health hospitals awaiting sentencing be entitled to vote under the Government’s proposals? I hope that the Minister can answer many of those questions. Many Members are understandably angry about out inaction in the past, but I must say that I prefer our inaction on the matter to the Government’s action thus far.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing the debate, particularly on getting it as a kind of reserve option, and thank him for his generous remarks at the beginning of his contribution. As ever, of course, he and I will not fall out, even if we end up disagreeing. I would like to take the opportunity, as everyone else has, to wish all hon. Members a happy new year, although that does seem rather a long time ago.
I shall set out what the Government have announced and then try to deal with as many of the questions as I can. I will respond to questions which I believe are of interest to as many people as possible, and write to hon. Members about those that remain which I can not answer at this point. I will place a copy of the letter in the Library so that Members can see the Government’s responses.
It is worth starting with a bit of background because hon. Members have mentioned it—I will get through this quickly. We have already mentioned that some prisoners—those on remand, for example—have been able to vote for some time. The bar on prisoners who are serving a sentence dates back to 1870, and successive Governments have maintained the position that those who have broken their contract with society by committing an offence and are imprisoned should lose their right to vote.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering opened the debate in a perfectly helpful way by quoting my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who made it clear that he does not want to make this change. To be frank, it is not something that I want to do, and I believe that many Government Members would rather not do it, but we do not have a choice. We have a legal obligation. To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), the proposals are not a sop to anyone. The European Court of Human Rights made a ruling in the Hirst case, and we are legally obliged to comply with it.
It is worth reminding ourselves what the Court actually said in the Hirst case. It said that the existing bar on convicted prisoners—the blanket ban—was contrary to article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the European convention on human rights. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr Offord) referred to Mr Hirst. Although the ruling was given in his case, under the proposals that we will put before the House, he would not have been entitled to vote when he was in prison because he committed a serious crime and was sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment.
We in this country seem blessed—that is not really the right word. The most odious criminals appear to be the ones who run off to the European Court of Human Rights. Another odious criminal who took the Government to court—the judgment was announced before Christmas—also had been convicted of serious crimes.
The Government are following three principles in their approach. The first goes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). We have to meet our legal obligations, but we want to go no further than that. Secondly, we want to ensure that the most serious offenders are not given the right to vote. That is why we did not say that there would be no line, that the limit would be entirely up to judges. We want to ensure that there is a line, so that anyone above that length of sentence would not be able to vote. We recognise that the most serious offenders should not be able to vote.
Mr Harper
Let me make a little more progress. I am conscious that Members have raised many questions, and I want to try to deal with some of them rather than stack up new ones.
The third principle is to prevent the taxpayer from having to pay successful claims for compensation. One of the problems we have is that even if the compensation in an individual case is not significant, we in this country are blessed—again, that is probably not the right word—with lawyers who are assiduous, if there is money on the table, in running around and getting lots of people to sign up for cases under no win, no fee rules. Various Members have mentioned that there are already 2,500 cases pending. One can be certain that if there were a successful case for compensation, lawyers would quickly go around prisons to sign up prisoners for legal actions on the basis that there might be £1,000 compensation on the table. The Government would be faced with thousands and thousands of cases. We estimate that compensation in an individual case might be around £750 to £1,000, but multiply that by the thousands and thousands of prisoners who would bring cases if there were money on the table, and we would be looking at significant sums for the taxpayer. The one thing that would be worse than making these changes in the law would be giving hard-earned taxpayers’ money to some of those criminals. I shall take my hon. Friend’s question.
Mr Jackson
I thank the Minister for that explanation, but his argument would carry much more weight if Frodl v. Austria had been the last substantive case in the European Court of Human Rights on this issue. The ruling was very prescriptive and said, in effect, that the majority of prisoners had to have the vote. However, it was not the last case. As I made clear earlier, the last case was Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom, and paragraphs 112 to 114 of its ruling specifically made it clear that the Government had a range of options on which they could consult. It is not a question of the Government having to comply with the arbitrary limit of four years; that simply is not true.
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend makes a helpful point by referring to the Greens and M.T. judgment. This comes down to what several Members have said about whether we have the option of doing what the previous Government did, which was nothing. I am afraid that we do not. In that judgment, the Court gave the UK Government six months from the date that the judgment becomes final to introduce proposals. I can say to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that there are various ways of dealing with it, but the Government will introduce primary legislation in the House. That should deal with questions raised by several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who is a member of the Backbench Business Committee. Proposals for primary legislation will be put before the House, and Members will have an opportunity to debate them fully. We will not try to think of a different way to implement the judgment, but we want to ensure that we have a debate in the House.
Mr Harper
In terms of the timetable, we have to introduce proposals, not pass them. The Government’s responsibility is to introduce the proposals before 23 August this year; in other words, before the House rises for the summer recess. The Court has suspended the 2,500 or so cases of people claiming damages on the basis that we will introduce proposals within the time limit. If we fail to do so, the cases will be revived and there will then be a serious risk that the Government will be faced with paying damages.
Let me deal with some other questions. To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering—this is his debate—the problem would not be fixed by somehow getting rid of the Human Rights Act 1998. Even if we were to sweep it away tomorrow, we would still be a party to the European convention on human rights and the ruling would stand. The debate on the Act is important, but it is not relevant to this matter.
My hon. Friend asked whether the UK was being singled out. We have to act because British prisoners took cases to the Court, on which it has ruled. Some of the other countries that still have a blanket ban have not been put in that position. If no prisoners had brought a case against the UK Government, we would not be acting. We are acting only because of the legal judgment. The hon. Member for Rhondda said that it had been his Government’s preference to do nothing. It is our preference to do nothing, but we face a legal obligation.
Mr Harper
I, too, congratulate my newly knighted hon. Friend. He put his case in a measured and thoughtful way, as did the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). Apart from what she said at the beginning of her remarks—that this is, indeed, a legal judgment and that we are obliged to implement it—I did not agree with her arguments, and I am afraid that the Government and I do not agree with what my hon. Friend said either.
Let me try to answer some of the questions that were raised by several Members, including the hon. Member for Rhondda. He accused the Government of gold-plating the provisions. We absolutely have not done that. We set a limit which we believe is the minimum required to comply with our obligations. Moreover, in contrast with the previous Government, who were proposing to enfranchise prisoners for all elections, we have said that we will make a change only for those elections where we are legally obliged to do so: the Westminster and European elections. We will not do it for local elections or referendums. Importantly, we will not do it for elections for police and crime commissioners, or for mayors. We will do what is legally necessary and no more. That was not what the previous Government were going to do. They proposed enfranchising prisoners for all elections. That would have perhaps had some of the consequences for local elections that Members have mentioned.
Also, we will ensure that prisoners cannot register to vote at the prison. It would clearly be inappropriate to have significant number of voters at prisons able to influence the results of elections. It is also worth saying, as my final point—
Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)
Order. That concludes the debate. We must move on to the next one.
Parliamentary Representation
Mark Harper Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Bryant
Yes. For some strange reason I seem to have been up in Oldham recently. Oldham East and Saddleworth feels as it if it has been slammed together with no consideration of what constitutes a community.
I do not want to focus too much on that issue; I really want to talk about equalisation of seats. I cannot remember which hon. Member said it, but it is absolutely right that the apparent party political advantage to the Labour party from the fact that it takes more voters to elect a Conservative MP than a Labour one is far more to do with turnout than anything else. The equalisation of seats will make barely any difference, according to calculations done by virtually every academic so far, to the partisan advantage of one political party or another. For that matter, a 5 or 10% leeway would not make a great difference, on a partisan basis, to one or other party. In Labour constituencies there have tended to be smaller majorities, but still safe seats, whereas a Conservative safe seat tends to have a very large majority, because there is a much higher turnout.
I support equalisation to an extent, and certainly as things stand the situation is not right; it is not acceptable and there should be greater equalisation. However, I worry about the Government trying to get 99% of all seats within a very tight band. That is a much tighter band than in any other country, and it is being done on the basis of registered electors, whereas most other countries use population. The hon. Member for St Ives was right when he said it would be a mistake if, because of the Bill, we ended up with—I think these were his words—“antiseptic constituencies” with permanently mobile boundaries. That would not be good for representation of views in Parliament or for ensuring that a full cross-section of British society is here. Nor would it make it easier for people to understand who represents them, and to maintain that continuity.
To give one tiny instance, if a constituent comes to a Member with a case and the Member takes it up, it might take many years, as did many of the miners’ compensation cases that I took up. Someone whose Member stops representing them because of the boundary change must start all over again, from the beginning, because the data protection people have said that MPs cannot hand the file over to another MP. [Interruption.] The Minister is saying something. I do not know whether he wants to intervene; perhaps he will respond later.
On a point of information, international comparisons are often cited regarding the need for greater equalisation. In fact, in the United States of America, if the same equation is made concerning how many voters it takes to get someone elected, Wyoming has nearly 10.5 times the representation, for population, of California. They base their arrangements not on registered or eligible voters, but on population. Sometimes it is good to equalise—but only to an extent.
It is important to recognise the distinctness of various parts of the country when we are drawing up boundaries. Some have already been mentioned. The Isle of Wight was referred to in some of the debates we had in the House of Commons. We believe that the distinctness of the Isle of Wight should be recognised in the statute, and hold a similar belief regarding Cornwall. I note that yesterday was the anniversary of the crossing of the Rubicon. I do not know whether the crossing of the Tamar is still an ambition of the Government. In one sense, Cornwall is only administratively in England. It has a distinctness that should be recognised. If there were a referendum in Cornwall on whether Cornwall should have Cornwall-only seats, there would be an overwhelming majority in favour. I hope the Government will think again on that matter.
Many of the same issues apply to Anglesey, though in that case it goes the other way in being too small, as opposed to the Isle of Wight being too large. The point was made about Argyll and Bute, and, although it did not sound like special pleading, of course it was. However, the point was well made: it is in many ways a sparser constituency than the highland seats. There is a strong argument for the distinctiveness of Argyll and Bute.
Although I understand the issues about Wales—in particular north-west Wales, where there is a high concentration of people with Welsh as their first language—a drive towards equalisation may, and in some academics’ views will, lead to no parliamentary seat having a Welsh-speaking majority. That would be a mistake in terms of how the British Parliament is viewed in Wales, and would incense a greater sense of nationalism. The Government should recognise that.
My final point on specifics that should be recognised concerns estuaries. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) referred to sea lochs, but it is important that wide estuaries such as those on the Mersey, the Humber, the Clyde, the Forth and the Thames should not be crossed when creating parliamentary constituencies. Some argue that that should apply to Welsh valleys, because of their peculiarities. It would seem odd if a small part of the top of a valley—even if there was no connecting road—was bunged into another constituency. However, I think most issues in the Welsh valleys can be addressed; there is no specific reason why not.
A 10% rather than a 5% leeway would mean there was no need to cross ward boundaries in the creation of seats. In some of the big city conurbations, that is important. There would be no need to cross county boundaries—all geographical and physical necessities that the land, or God or whoever has given us could be met, and there would be no dramatic harm to the representativeness that the Government seek to achieve in aiming for equalisation. I hope that, in striving towards their measures, the Government will look again at whether 10% might not be a better leeway than 5%.
I want briefly to say a couple of words about the number of seats in Parliament. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute said that the number has always crept up, except when the Irish Free State was created and we cut the numbers. However, the measure we should think about first is the nature of the job of a Member of Parliament. International comparisons were made by the hon. Member for St Ives. However, to compare the UK with Spain, France or Germany—where Governments are not constituted in the same way—is to compare apples with pears and is therefore mistaken. Similarly, the powers held by parliamentarians in those countries are very different. In France, much more is devolved and done by councillors. We have far fewer councillors—one for every 3,000 voters, whereas in France it is one for every 110. Those comparisons do not bear examination.
As MPs, we create the Government; we are the electoral college, as it were, for the Prime Minister and the whole of the Government. All Ministers have to come out of Parliament, because the amendment in the 1689 Bill of Rights was lost. Dramatic cuts in the number of MPs would be a mistake. The number of constituents has grown and grown over the years, as has the amount of casework we are expected to do.
I have two final points. I wonder how the AV Bill—I cannot remember what it is called—
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
Chris Bryant
From a sedentary position, the Minister has helped me out. I wonder how the Bill is doing in the House of Lords. As I understand it, the Bill has to be out of the House of Lords in February in order to have the referendum in May. With another 70, 80, 90 sets of amendments, I wonder whether it is now possible for the Bill to have the two weeks between Committee and Report stages in the House of Lords, and come back to the House of Commons. I urge the Minister—indeed, I make him an offer: if he splits the two elements of the Bill, as we urged in the beginning, we could help him get his AV referendum in time for May.
House of Lords reform has been briefly mentioned by several Members. When are we going to have that Bill? It was originally going to be before Christmas, then at the beginning of the year, then in January. We hear rumours of March, April and May. When will we get the Bill?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), it is the first time I have done so.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for securing the debate, and giving me and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) the chance to spend the entire morning in Westminster Hall, debating a fascinating range of topics.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives ranged widely across a number of constitutional issues. I hope I will deal with all the points he raised, but I might be a little pressed. I will deal first with the issues he raised, as it is his debate, and then touch on some raised by other Members. He started with the question of why the Government settled on 600 as the right number for the House of Commons. We were frank during the debate on the Bill. There is no magic about it; it is a judgment. The two coalition parties had different views before the election. They both wanted to shrink the size of the House of Commons: the Conservatives to 585, and the Liberal Democrats to 500, albeit with a change to the voting system. We settled on 600, which we thought was the right balance; as several Members have pointed out, constituencies should not be so large in population that Members could not do the job. With 600, most constituencies would be within a range that Members today would recognise, and we do not think it is an enormous leap.
The hon. Member for Rhondda said he would be against a dramatic cut in the number of MPs. The Government would be as well; we are not making a dramatic cut. We are making a modest reduction of about 7%. One can argue about it, but I do not think anyone can say that a reduction of 7% is dramatic.
I was aware of the Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for St Ives. He said that his Bill proposed a reduction to 500, primarily as a result of devolution. Prior to the formation of this Government, people argued that we should treat the parts of the United Kingdom that have a devolved Parliament or Assembly differently from those parts that do not, in terms of entitlement to seats at Westminster. That idea was put forward but the Government decided not to do that. We were keen to treat all parts of the United Kingdom in the same way, so the quota is a United Kingdom quota. Because of where we start from, the impact of the change in the number of seats will differ in different parts of the UK. That is because we want the weight of a constituent’s vote to be equal across the United Kingdom, and that is an important principle.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), wanted to know what principles guided us on the two exceptions. First, we wanted a set of principles that were widely applicable and that gave the boundary commissions the chance to allow it. We made only two exceptions out of the 600 seats for exceptional geographical reasons; the constituencies both have small populations but are large enough to sustain a Member of Parliament, as they do now, because of their dispersed geography.
I know that the matter is debatable. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute demonstrated an encyclopaedic knowledge of his constituency, as one would expect from an assiduous Member of Parliament; he certainly taught me something. None the less, I still believe that the Government have made the right judgment about the two exceptional constituencies that he selected. I would not be so churlish as to suggest that he was pleading for anything special. However, the hon. Member for Rhondda did so; he engaged in special pleading for Wales, something about which those who participated in the debate on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill heard an awful lot. We heard much about the Welsh valleys and Welsh constituencies, as the record will show.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), who is not in her seat, made some specific points about Cornwall. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives spoke about what he called—I have to be careful here—the border between Cornwall and England. I think that he raised exactly the same point when we were debating the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. He referred today to the length of that debate; we had eight days of debate in the House, and he has obviously had the opportunity today to expand on the points that he made then.
In response to that debate, I said that although that view is shared by some in Cornwall, the Government’s position is that Cornwall is part of England and the United Kingdom; we do not recognise that boundary in quite the same constitutional way as does my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives. I understand why my hon. Friend takes that view, but I was surprised that the hon. Member for Rhondda appeared to suggest that the boundary had constitutional significance. I do not know whether the Opposition have changed policy and are trying to separate Cornwall from England, but I do not suggest that my hon. Friend takes that view.
My hon. Friend made some good points, including about the difficulty of getting to London from his constituency. That is something that he and I can both take up with First Great Western. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) has arrived for the next debate; he, too uses that train service and will concur. That will be the best way to deal with that problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives accepted in general the strong case for moving towards equal seats. I was most impressed by his novel arguments, which I have not heard before, for claiming significant parts of the Atlantic ocean as part of his constituency. We might get into all sorts of territorial difficulties if we did so, but it was a novel idea.
My hon. Friend and his fellow Members of Parliament for Cornish seats met the Prime Minister and me to make a pitch and to explain why they believe that the nature of Cornwall is unique. I would leave him with this notion. The Government do not subscribe to the view that one cannot represent constituents in Cornwall and other parts of the country, Devon being the most obvious. “We already have Members of the European Parliament who represent the whole of the south-west of England, and so represent constituents in Cornwall, in Devon and, indeed in Gibraltar perfectly ably.” Cornwall and Devon also share a police force. The border is not inviolate.
I do not accept the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, although I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) shares his view, about a Member of Parliament representing, say, part of Plymouth and part of Cornwall. Of course, some things are more important to one group of constituents than to others, but that is true of many constituencies. I have a fairly large rural constituency, and at one end of it a particular range of matters will be important that have no connection with those at the other end because of the distance. Nevertheless, I have to represent them all and understand all those issues. That is part of the job of being a Member of Parliament. The Government do not share the view that it is impossible to deal with that.
Andrew George
Of course it is not impossible to represent Gibraltar and Cornwall; nor is it impossible to represent places on either side of the Scottish border. However, the Minister has rather inventively twisted some of my evidence on what was so exceptional about the two constituencies that have been preserved. The question that he must address is what is the problem in allowing the Boundary Commission reasonable flexibility to allow constituencies that have a clearly shared view about where their boundaries should lie? That is particularly so as those areas outside them would not be affected and certainly would not be protesting against such a settlement.
Mr Harper
The principle that votes should be of more equal weight across the country is important. Several Members have used words and phrases such as straitjacket and the rules being too tight. If we were to say that all constituencies had to be exactly the same size, my hon. Friend’s argument would have some force. However, although we are reducing flexibility there is still a 10% range in the size of constituencies. Based on the 2009 data, constituencies will broadly range from about 73,000 to almost 80,000. There is still a fair bit of flexibility, which allows the independent boundary commissions to take account of issues such as local authority boundaries, community boundaries and the geographic features that we have to contend with.
In evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the boundary commissions said that they would be perfectly able to deal with the rules proposed in the Bill, and that it would not present them with insuperable problems. We are fortunate that the four boundary commissions are politically independent. Those who pretend that some sort of gerrymandering exercise is going on are simply wrong. That phrase emanates from the USA. As one of my hon. Friends said, it is not that there is just some political interference there; in some parts of the United States, the boundaries are drawn up by the legislatures. It is not that there is interference, but it is a political decision on where the boundaries should be. We do not do that here. Parliament sets the framework, but decisions about where the boundaries should go are taken by boundary commissions.
Andrew George
That is the nub of the debate. The exception argument for the two preserved constituencies that the Minister has advanced this morning does not deal with the question of why that principle was decided upon, and why that reasonable flexibility should not also be applied for other constituencies.
Mr Harper
I shall deal briefly with the other two points raised by my hon. Friend, as they were important, particularly so in his part of the country. He was right to draw attention to the need for an accurate and complete electoral register. Our electoral registration system means that 91% or 92% of eligible voters are registered. Internationally, that is pretty good. However, the Government are not complacent and want to do better. That is why I wrote to every local authority in the autumn, inviting them to take part in pilots to consider using public sector databases to improve the accuracy and completeness of the register. We had a good response, and I shall announce which local authorities are to participate in those pilots in due course.
I wrote to my hon. Friend about dual registration, which I know is important in Cornwall. He referred to people who own second homes and who choose to pay business rates because they let those properties. The rules are fairly clear. People who let their property are not entitled to register to vote. There must be a residence qualification, and there is case law on the matter. Electoral registration officers have to make such decisions on individual cases, and they should do so. I have received letters from people who object to not being allowed to register to vote, but one test is for the electoral registration system to be robust with them. Those who own a second home who pop there for only a week every year for a holiday will almost certainly not fulfil the criteria for being resident and entitled to vote. Local authorities could do a lot to help with that.
Voting Entitlement
Mark Harper Excerpts(14 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
A bar on sentenced, serving prisoners voting was first put in place in 1870. Successive Governments have maintained the position that, when an individual breaks their contract with society by committing an offence that leads to imprisonment, they should lose the right to vote while they are incarcerated.
Five years ago, in a case known as Hirst (No.2), the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the existing statutory bar on convicted prisoners voting was contrary to article 3, protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights—the right to free and fair elections.
The Court ruled that barring convicted prisoners in detention pursued a legitimate aim, but that a blanket ban was not proportionate. In its judgment, the Court acknowledged that the right to vote under the first protocol was not absolute, and that contracting states to the European Convention had to be given a margin of appreciation—a broad discretion—to decide what limitations on that right would be proportionate.
That judgment was handed down in October 2005. The last Government stated clearly and repeatedly that they would implement the judgment, published a timetable for legislation, and issued two consultation papers about how to do so. But they did nothing. The result is that the United Kingdom stands in breach of international law obligations—obligations that we expect others to uphold—and prisoners are bringing compensation claims as a direct result of the last Government’s inaction.
In November 2010, the European Court of Human Rights handed down a further judgment against the UK, Greens and MT. In that judgment, the Court set a deadline for the introduction of legislation of August 2011. There are in the region of 2,500 claims before the European Court of Human Rights which have been suspended pending implementation. We have been given a window to act and it is right that we do so. If we do not, we only increase the risk of damages.
It is plain that there are strong views across Parliament and in the country on the question of whether convicted prisoners should be entitled to vote. However, this is not a choice: it is a legal obligation. So the Government are announcing today that we will act to implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. In deciding how to proceed, we have been guided by three principles. First, that we should implement the Hirst judgment in a way that meets our legal obligations, but does not go further than that. Secondly, that the most serious offenders will not be given the right to vote. Thirdly, that we should seek to prevent the taxpayer having to face future claims for compensation.
The Government will therefore bring forward legislation providing that the blanket ban in the existing law will be replaced. Offenders sentenced to a custodial sentence of four years or more will lose the right to vote in all circumstances, which reflects the Government’s clear view that more serious offenders should not retain the right to vote. Offenders sentenced to a custodial sentence of less than four years will retain the right to vote, but legislation will provide that the sentencing judge will be able to remove that right if they consider that appropriate. Four years has in the past been regarded as the distinction between short and long-term prisoners, and the Government consider that permitting prisoners sentenced to less than four years’ imprisonment to vote is sufficient to comply with the judgment.
The right to vote will be restricted to UK Westminster Parliamentary and European Parliament elections only, and not in other elections or referendums. That is the minimum currently required by the law (a case considering whether article 3, protocol 1 applies to elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly is currently before the European Court of Human Rights: the Government’s position is that they do not). Prisoners will vote by post or proxy, and will be entitled to register to vote not at the prison, but at their former address or the area where they have a local connection.
We believe that these proposals can meet the objectives that we have set out of implementing the judgment in a way that is proportionate; ensuring the most serious offenders will not be given the right to vote; and seeking to prevent future claims for compensation. We will bring forward legislation next year for Parliament to debate.
While the franchise is reserved to Westminster, the implementation of this policy will clearly have implications for Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the administration of justice is devolved. The Government will work closely with colleagues in the Scottish and Northern Ireland Administrations before legislation is introduced on the practical implications of the approach.
Governments have an absolute duty to uphold the rule of law. And at this of all times we must avoid risking taxpayers’ money in ways that the public would rightly condemn. In the light of this, and of the legacy left by the last Government, the only responsible course is to implement the judgment, and to do so in a way which ensures the most serious offenders continue to lose the right to vote.
Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
Mark Harper Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
Before I start, I want to thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your kind words about our 2018 bid team, who were dubbed “the three lions” by The Sun. I know that when the Prime Minister returns from Zurich, he will play close attention to this debate. He spoke about this matter earlier and will listen carefully to what Members have said.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), not just on securing the debate, but on the thoughtful tone in which he opened it. That has been reflected by all hon. Members who have spoken. This matter is not about us, but about our ability to do our job—serving our constituents and doing our parliamentary work, as the shadow Leader of the House said.
I want to touch on the story that was in The Times earlier this week, because it has been referred to by a number of right hon. and hon. Members in this debate and it was raised at business questions earlier today. I understand that the story was the result of a freedom of information request, rather than a leak. I do not usually find myself quoting Sir Ian Kennedy, the chairman of IPSA, but it is worth putting on the record his response to the unfair way in which The Times ran that story—he has not always been particularly kind about Members of Parliament. He said:
“We assess that MPs have been thoughtful and proper in making their claims. Where we have queried a claim, it has been the result of misunderstanding as people adapt to the new scheme.”
He made it clear that, unlike the way in which they were reported, the claims were not improper and were examples not of MPs trying to do things that they should not have been doing, but of MPs behaving properly and adapting to the new system.
Bob Russell
Unfortunately, that message has not got into the newspapers. The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) made a serious allegation earlier and the Daily Mail today referred to an IPSA leak. Has the Minister received a statement from IPSA responding to the serious allegation that its director of communications is touting around trying to plant stories that are detrimental to Members of Parliament?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the message has not got out that MPs have behaved completely properly. That is why I thought it helpful to announce it on the Floor of the House, not that that will get it into the newspapers, as we know. However, I thought it worth putting it on the record that IPSA has acknowledged that MPs have behaved properly.
It is not my job to speak for IPSA, but as the hon. Gentleman has asked me about this point, and as it was raised by the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) earlier, it may encourage hon. Members to know that IPSA has been following the progress of this debate very closely. It heard the right hon. Lady’s comments and has categorically denied them. It has confirmed that the information in The Times was obtained through an FOI request, not from a leak.
Ann Clwyd
I, too, have seen what IPSA has said in response, but it did not respond to the point that I made. I said:
“This morning, a colleague told me that they had been talking to a member of the press who had been offered information by somebody at IPSA on certain ‘juicy’ bits that had not yet emerged in the press about what certain Members had claimed for.”
I invited the person whom I named to answer that point. That person has not answered and I suggest that the statement put out by Sir Ian Kennedy does not answer the allegation that I made.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman think that it would help if IPSA answered parliamentary questions properly? For instance, I asked for a list of meetings that its staff had held with the press and of who was present on each occasion. The IPSA chief executive categorically refuses to answer that question. Would it not increase Members’ confidence in the system if IPSA were as transparent on such issues as it asks us to be when we are dealing with expenses?
Mr Harper
The hon. Lady makes a good point. When I am perusing the lists of tabled questions, I frequently see her pertinent questions to IPSA, and I sometimes enjoy seeing the answers. She is right: if transparency is good for us, it is good for IPSA. It can be extremely helpful.
This is a good point at which to refer to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who reminded the House that although IPSA is not accountable to the Government, it is accountable through the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member. Members look to that Committee to be vigorous in ensuring that IPSA conducts its affairs in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
Mr Winnick
Why has it taken so long for me to get a parliamentary reply about IPSA’s senior management team—who is involved, their salaries and so on? I have not yet received a reply, but surely such information should have been routine and I should have received it in a matter of two or three days.
Mr Harper
I can answer only for how Ministers and I deal with parliamentary questions. I endeavour to answer mine promptly and within the time limits, and I would have thought that others should do so too. However, thankfully, the Government are not responsible for IPSA’s ability to answer questions.
Mr Harper
I am grateful for that intervention. I shall now try to make some progress, as I want to leave sufficient time for other hon. Members who wish to get in.
I said that the Prime Minister would be listening closely to this debate. In July, during Prime Minister’s questions, he said that:
“what is necessary is a properly transparent system, a system with proper rules and limits which the public would have confidence in, but what we do not need is an overly bureaucratic and very costly system. I think all those in the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority need to get a grip of what they are doing, and get a grip of it very fast.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 946.]
That is what all Members have said today. They want IPSA’s system to be transparent, straightforward, not bureaucratic and not costly. IPSA should get on with that.
Mr Jenkin
Does the Minister agree that, as with the House of Commons, IPSA is unlikely to survive a freedom of information request for evidence of payment to be produced? How can it justify withholding evidence of payment—all the invoices—on grounds of cost? That is part of the cost of the system, and it is going to have to bear it.
Mr Harper
That may well be the case, and I think that IPSA has admitted in public that if people apply for receipts through freedom of information requests, it may well have to do that. We will have to see how it gets on. That is the decision that it has made, which the shadow Leader of the House said is a balance between transparency and cost. It may find that the rules of freedom of information affect it as they affected the House.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) was right to point out, as did other Members, what happened in the past and the fact that the House made the decision to have an independent system. That is important, as well as the transparency issue. I listened very carefully, but I do not think that anyone during the debate was urging that we go back on that; in fact, Members made good points about ensuring that we retain both transparency and independence.
Hon. Members gave examples of how they thought the system should move and a number spoke in favour of a flat-rate payment, including my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. However, a number of Members, including the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale), pointed out that a flat-rate system, which does not take into account the variance in costs across the country, may not be a perfect one and that there needs to be some flexibility. They all suggested ways in which that flexibility may be achieved.
We have heard from several Members about their various experiences. IPSA itself has recognised that in the first few months of running the system it made mistakes; it has been very transparent about that. We know that it made mistakes and that it needs to improve the system. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw and the shadow Leader of the House referred to improvements that have been made in the system. IPSA now makes some direct payments to landlords for constituency office rental, it now pays against invoices, and the travelcard can now be used to pay other bills. Most importantly, it implemented advances to Members to deal with the genuine problem that very many Members do not have significant amounts of money and are not in a position to meet these costs out of their own pocket and then claim money back—costs which, as many Members have said, one would not expect any other person in business, in a position such as ours, to have to pay out of their own pocket, and would reasonably be thought of as proper business expenses.
Having said that, what I have heard does not suggest that the legislation necessarily needs to be reviewed. Under the legislation introduced by this House, the expenses system and the way that it operates is a matter for IPSA. No change in legislation is required to be able to deal with the issues that have been raised in the House. Indeed, in the letter that IPSA recently circulated to Members, it said that it will conduct its annual review of the scheme in the new year and will look at the problems that have been experienced by MPs. It specifically refers to the impact of the scheme on family life, which was raised by Members on both sides of the House, and the impact on Members living in the outer reaches of the London area—indeed, in places that most people in this House probably would not consider were in the London area. IPSA has also said that it will balance its requirements for assurance against the administrative burdens on itself and on Members. That is welcome and shows that it is listening.
Under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, IPSA is required to consult the Leader of the House as one of its statutory consultees, and the Government are considering how we can use that opportunity to submit evidence to IPSA. As Members will know, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is very familiar with the issues raised with him by many MPs, either privately or on the Floor of the House at business questions.
The Government strongly support the principles of independence and transparency for IPSA, as does the shadow Leader of the House. The review that IPSA is about to undertake is its opportunity to deliver a system that remains transparent, which is probably the best way of determining that Members behave properly, but is also more efficient and less bureaucratic. I am sure that I speak for Members on both sides of the House in urging IPSA to take that opportunity and deliver a system that improves on what we have today.