Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Wayne David Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Shepherd]

I would think that the truth of the matter is that the rough must be taken with the smooth. It is the particularisation that I do not like.

I agree that having a correct census is fundamental to a democracy, and yet that is not universal. There are not many fines in relation to the census and we still do not have a complete one. However, I am very cautious about the idea of forcing anyone to do anything in their relationship with the democratic process, whether it is voting for parties or anything else. Australia has a fine for not voting, in theory, but I do not think that that is appropriate for us. It would be an inhibition on liberty. If I do not wish to be part of a process, as a free-born Briton, surely I have that right. That is the essence of what being British was about once upon a time.

I am not going to get excited, because I have been here a long time and I have heard all the passing nostrums. I am not saying that this is a nostrum, because the hon. Member for Nottingham North is trying to address a genuine worry; I do not doubt that. However, I have the sense that I am free born and that I may do what I wish, with my view of public officials, because that is entirely a matter for me, and that I should not be required to register with the possibility of a penalty if I do not vote. That seems to me to be the other side of the coin to liberty.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

To follow on from the point that has just been made, I believe that in a democracy everybody should be able to choose whether to exercise their right to vote, but to do that they have to be on the register. That is what this debate is about. People must be on the register so that they are able to choose whether to vote in an election.

The Government are committed to continuing with the fine under the current legislation of £1,000 for households that refuse to co-operate with the electoral registration officer. However, they have had second thoughts on whether it is appropriate to introduce a fine or civil penalty for individuals who refuse to co-operate.

Like other hon. Members, I welcome that change, because initially the Government suggested in the draft Bill that registration would be a matter of personal choice. Many argued that to register is a civic duty and responsibility, and that there should be a civil penalty attached for individuals who do not co-operate.

I also welcome the fact that the Government intend to use the fine sparingly. Their impact assessment states:

“Currently the criminal offence of not responding to a household registration form is used to encourage compliance and thus maintain the completeness of the electoral register. It is sparsely applied in practice and 150 prosecutions are actually initiated annually. It is intended that the new civil penalty will be used in the same way thus the propensity to issue fines should not increase,”

which is perfectly reasonable. The important thing is the declaration—I take the point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on that. It is important to make such a stipulation prominent, so that people are aware of their responsibility. The threat—the incentive—to comply is important, not the penalty.

[Mr Allen]

The penalty is not the first but the last resort. People can do a range of administrative things, including visits, letters and calls, which hon. Members use within political parties to get people out to vote, before a fine is levied. The penalty will enable people to register. It would not be fixed in the sense that a bureaucrat will say, “I see Mrs Smith hasn’t registered. Send her a £500 fine.” It will be the last in a very long chain of events.

[Wayne David]

My hon. Friend makes the point extremely well. He mentions in passing his proposal for a £500 fine. The official Opposition are proposing a £100 fine. Both probing amendments were tabled because we are disappointed that the Government, despite the encouragement we have given them, have not proposed a figure for the fine. We are told that the figure will be in regulations in the not-too-distant future.

As I have mentioned regulations, Mr Weir, may I make a point in passing? The Minister referred a number of times to the draft regulations placed in the Library last Monday. I went to the Library after our debate last Monday and was told that the regulations were placed there at 4.1 pm, or 22 minutes before the debate began. As he well knows, it is impossible for any reasonable person to discuss such regulations with such access. In addition, the existence of the draft regulations is more theoretical than real—only two appeared, when the others would have been directly relevant to the debate. We must wait for the publication of the other draft regulations, but the communication placed in the Library was clear that there are no draft regulations in six important areas.

[Mr Allen]

The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) spoke of affronts to liberty, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is an affront to liberty that Ministers can set the level of the fine by diktat outwith the processes of the House? All Governments have introduced such provisions—I am not making a partisan point—but we should take that power by amending the Bill this evening. All hon. Members would understand that, and the Government would have the ability to adjust the fine over the years, because of inflation or because a different view is taken of the offence.

[Wayne David]

My hon. Friend makes his point very clearly. That is precisely what we would have liked: full parliamentary scrutiny, with the figure having been presented to us in the Bill or at least in regulations that we could have considered in parallel. In fact, we put that request to the Government months ago, so I am disappointed—not from a partisan point of view but in the interest of scrutiny and democracy—that it has not been possible. There are several gems in the regulations. I do not want to digress, but there is a reference to “agile methodology”. That is a new one on me. Perhaps the Minister could write to me about what it means with regard to verification.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Mearns]

The variation around the country makes it difficult to draw a comparison. There is little preventive or deterrent measure within the level of fines suggested; otherwise, these parking tickets would not be issued on a day-to-day basis.

[Wayne David]

That is right. A balance has to be struck. We had hoped to debate whether the Government had struck that balance, but unfortunately we cannot come to that decision. Perhaps before the end of the debate the Minister will tell us what level of fine the Government have in mind.

[Mr Harper]

I want to say one or two words about the draft secondary legislation. I do not apologise for when I laid it in the Library, because we are not debating it; we are debating the Bill. I put it in the Library so that Members could see it. I know I said this last week, but I will repeat it, because the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) needs to think it through: I will take no lectures from him about secondary legislation. Two similar Bills delegating significant powers to Ministers on electoral matters were introduced in the previous Parliament. I shall tell the House when the previous Government published the secondary legislation. It never published any in draft during the parliamentary passage of the Bill. The first any Members saw of any secondary legislation was after royal assent. I have published the draft secondary legislation while the Bill is still before this House, let alone the other one, and I have said that the rest of the secondary legislation will be published by the autumn, before the Bill has finished its passage through the other place. It might not be perfect and we might not be paragons of virtue, but we are doing an awful lot better than the previous Government. He ought to think about that before makes that point again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Allen]

First, may I name-check another member of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), for her attendance and contribution? She made an epic contribution, and she was extremely helpful to me when I was indisposed, in making sure the Committee carried out its scrutiny duties effectively. Secondly, may I give credit to the Government, as they have moved on this issue? At the outset, there was not to be any fine whatever, and it takes courage, and some cost, to listen, and the Government should be commended in this Chamber and outside it for having done so. There is more to do, of course, but we are now in a position from where we can move forward.

There were a couple of references in the debate to Robert Caro’s mammoth biography of Lyndon Baines Johnson, who, from a very difficult position, became the leading promoter of civil rights, including civil rights legislation. At the beginning of those enormous volumes, the scene is set by a black woman in the south seeking to get registered to vote. We need to remember, particularly in discussing registration and clause 5, that she was prohibited from participating in the democracy of the United States not by being prevented from voting, but because she could not even register in order then to participate in the voting process. That is why this clause is important, and why I hope the Minister will listen to the arguments that have been made tonight. In order to ensure that he listens even more carefully than he normally does, I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 5

Transitional provision to do with Part 1

[Wayne David]

I beg to move amendment 21, in schedule 5, page 27, line 21, at end insert—

‘(6) The Government shall report to Parliament annually within two months of the end of the financial year on what money had been made available to local authorities to meet costs of transition to the new register and what safeguards have been put in place to make sure the money has been spent on the specified task.’.

I will refer specifically to the amendment and then more generally to schedule 5. On the financing of individual electoral registration, our concern is whether sufficient finance is being provided. The explanatory notes that accompany the Bill indicate that:

“A total of £108m was allocated at the Spending Review in 2010…This includes £85m resource funding in 2014/15 to fund registration officers to make contact with each potential elector individually”

who hopes to be on the register.

The petitioners of individual electoral registration and those who work in the field have concerns. I cite in particular the comments of the chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators, Mr John Turner. I know there has been discussion between the Government and the association, which I welcome. However, Mr Turner made the following important point in his written evidence to the Select Committee:

“It is our view that the successful implementation of the new system will depend on the relevant funding going directly”—

I emphasise the word “directly”—

“to electoral services.”

This is critical. He continues:

“Any funding needs to continue post 2015 and should not simply be seen as one-off capital funding.”

Our concern is essentially in line with his comments. We are worried, for example, that there will be insufficient resources to provide electoral registration officers with the necessary new guidance and training, particularly in respect of data management. We recognise that it will be necessary to enhance the skills and knowledge base of officers, and we are concerned that money is not provided for that. In other words, a comprehensive training re-vamp is needed, along with a comprehensive skills analysis, in order to inform the appropriate provision of training and support for electoral administrators.

In addition, there is also the fear, as I said, that the money allocated by the Government will not eventually get through to where it is needed. We have tabled this amendment because, ideally, we would like these resources to be ring-fenced, so that the whole transition period and the implementation of a new system is properly financed with money that is guaranteed. The only way that electoral registration officers can plan effectively and do what is necessary is if they know exactly how much money is coming through.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

One additional problem that will be faced, which has been discussed a lot in the course of the debate, is the differential involved in how various areas will find carrying out this process. We already know how different that can be, even within parts of an area, but certainly between different areas. We have to be confident that this will be provided for.

[Wayne David]

That is a good point, because one of our concerns about the Government’s approach to this legislation is that it will not be a comprehensive one right across the country. We feel that where there is a perceived need for more resources to be allocated, those resources will not, in fact, be allocated to where they are required. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.

That leads me to a specific question I have about the devolved institutions—the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. I made inquiries the other day with the Welsh Assembly Government as to whether or not any agreement had been reached with central Government about an appropriate allocation of resources to the Assembly, because local government is devolved. I was concerned to be told that no such agreement had been reached with the Cabinet Office. So people in Wales are not sure exactly what sum will be made available and whether or not the Welsh Assembly Government will have the ability to do what they believe is necessary within the confines of Wales. So I would welcome any comments the Minister wishes to make about Wales and Scotland.

In the second half of my comments, I wish to refer more generally to schedule 5, which relates to the transition to the new system. The amendments that we tabled last Monday have already been discussed, but we have concerns about this schedule in particular. It is a vital part of the Bill, and we are very concerned about postal votes and the number of electors who will be on the register when the next boundary review takes place in December 2015.

It is not my intention to repeat the arguments I used a week ago, but I would just like to make a couple of points, the first of which relates to postal votes. Strong representations on postal votes have been made by a number of organisations. I particularly wish to cite the most recent joint circular given to Members of Parliament by Mencap, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Age Concern, Scope and Sense. Those organisations say:

“We believe that an appropriate balance must be struck between safeguarding individual registration against electoral fraud and ensuring accessibility. We remain concerned about the risks involved in the arrangements currently in place for dealing with postal votes during the transition to IER. Postal votes are disproportionately used by disabled and older voters.”

That is a very important point and, despite their listening exercise, the Government have not truly taken on board the points made by all those organisations which have united to speak with one voice to set out their concerns in moderate and reasonable ways.

Those organisations have supported our amendments 18 and 19, saying that our approach

“would give those people wishing to use postal votes time to register under the new system before the next election.”

Our concern is that many of these postal voters will not be able to vote at the next election. The circular goes on to say that our approach

“would have allowed for disabled and older people, who disproportionately make use of postal votes, time to familiarise themselves with the new system and ensure that they remain eligible for postal voting at the next election.”

We strongly endorse those points.

May I set this out in a genuine sense, through an anecdote? My mother is 86 years of age and she has a postal vote. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] She will very pleased. She has had her postal vote for many years and, as far as she was concerned, when she filled in the form to have a postal vote it was for the rest of her life. I hope that she will get through the Government’s data-matching exercise, as otherwise she will be asked to reapply for a postal vote at the ripe old age of 86—it will be a fairly detailed application, too. It is unreasonable to put such a burden on elderly people and the Government should, at the very least, ensure that the carry-over is the same as it is for other voters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this provision is the last remainder of what was essentially a gerrymandering Bill and that not removing it will affect the boundaries? Can he see any reason why Liberal Democrats in particular should vote for it, given that it would be one of those rare occasions when turkeys vote for Christmas?

[Mr David]

My hon. Friend’s concern for the Liberal Democrats is touching, although I cannot say that I share it. To answer his first question frankly, yes, at the start of the legislative process, strong words were used, not least by me, because we were worried by the overtly and crudely partisan nature of the Bill of that time. But—and it is an important “but”—the Government modified their position. I give them credit for doing so. As my hon. Friend implies, if they have made concessions in a host of areas already, why not go the whole hog and let us have a proper consensual approach?

I listened intently to what the Minister said in the debate on our amendments last Monday. He did not produce any convincing arguments why the timetable that we established in legislation when we were in power could not be followed, and why we need to move hastily towards the Bill. If the Government do not take heed of what we are saying from the Opposition Front Bench, let them at least take note of what many people outside the House have said—the Electoral Commission, academics and the cross-party Select Committee. Many people drawn from a range of different organisations have made the same point: this is probably the most important change to our electoral system since the advent of universal suffrage. It is far too important to be the victim of crude partisanship. We want a consensual approach that will unite all democrats.

Finally, the Bill is important in terms of people’s ability to decide whether to cast their votes or not, but it is important in other respects as well. This underlines the civic responsibility point—people need to be on the electoral register for reasons other than to vote. One of the most important reasons is that those who are eligible for jury service are drawn from the electoral register. When we talk about the completeness of the register, we are not talking only about our democratic system and the voting system, important though it is. We are talking also about the criminal justice system and its credibility.

We all saw the terrible riots which scarred English cities last summer. That is all the more reason to ensure that all groups in our society are effectively represented on our juries. The last thing we want is an electoral register which contains a disproportionately large number of white middle-class people who are in turn represented on the juries that are selected. That is no way to enhance the credibility of our criminal justice system.

It is important to recognise that electoral registers are used to establish people’s creditworthiness. Whether they may have a mortgage is quite often defined by their presence on the electoral register. Also, it is seldom mentioned that the police make great use of the electoral register. It is important for the development of our society, as well as for our democracy. In a modern democracy, being on the electoral register is a civic duty and a civic responsibility. That is why we want accuracy in our electoral register. Although we all want accuracy, it is important to recognise that standing alongside it there must be completeness as well. Those are the twins that should go together in the legislation.

Despite the debates that we have had, our concern is that the Government place far too much emphasis on accuracy at the expense of completeness. We want to see the two going together. That is important not just when we reach a fully fledged individual electoral registration system, but in the transition system. Schedule 5 is a vital part of the legislation. It takes us through the transition and ensures that when individual registration is introduced it has the support of the people of this country, including potential and actual electors. I hope that the Committee will consider the schedule carefully and give careful consideration to the amendments for which we argued passionately last Monday—

Business of the House

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am delighted to hear about what has been happening in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Local enterprise partnerships have a key role to play in delivering this policy and helping to grow jobs in particular areas. This is part of the process, to which other hon. Members have drawn attention, of creating extra jobs in the private sector to compensate for the necessary decisions we have taken to downsize the public sector. I am delighted to hear about the rebalancing taking place in his constituency.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the fact that the chief constable of Gwent police has embarked on a programme of draconian spending cuts at the behest of the Home Office without any consultation whatsoever with elected representatives, the police authority or, indeed, members of the public?

[Sir George Young]

There will be an opportunity to raise the matter on Monday, when the Home Secretary will be at the Dispatch Box. Many police authorities, certainly in England, have been able to manage with the reduced budget available to them and ensure that front-line services remain unaffected. They have secured the necessary economies through joint purchasing and by pooling resources and moving people from back offices to the front line. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is now forewarned that the hon. Gentleman is on the war path.

Business of the House

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Is it possible to have a debate on the excessive inventiveness of the Prime Minister? I am thinking in particular of yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions in which he referred to the national health service on two occasions and got his facts completely wrong.

[Sir George Young]

I would deny that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister ever got any fact wrong. I heard the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) at the close of play yesterday and I am sure we will want to respond regarding the issue he raised.

Business of the House

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

Everyone receiving benefits on the basis of unemployment, including people outside St Paul’s, is required to be available for, and actively seek, work. They must show that they meet those conditions when they sign on. If they cannot do that and have no good reason for failing to comply, they face a complete loss of benefit.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

There is ongoing concern in the House about the implications of the loss or misplacement of private documents in public places by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin). So that we can assess accurately the scale of the problem that we face, may we have a debate on the literacy levels of tramps in public parks?

[Hon. Members]

They are royal parks.

Business of the House (Thursday)

Wayne David Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) made a good point, because tomorrow is not just about raising the cap. It is about the consequences of raising the cap, which will have an effect through the recruitment of foreign students. Earlier, a point was made very eloquently by a Northern Ireland Member about the effect on Northern Ireland students. Tomorrow we will have to cover a range of issues, which will be difficult to do in the short time that we have.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Hon. Members have referred to Northern Ireland, but the regulations are specific to England. Of course, we are concerned about the whole United Kingdom, however, and we are talking about a variable geometry over the United Kingdom. Is it not right and proper, therefore, that we should have plenty of time to compare and contrast the situation in England with that in the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Mr Jones]

That is a very important point, which the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) eloquently made earlier. The changes that we make tomorrow will affect students not only on the mainland, but in those countries with devolved Administrations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Farrelly]

My hon. Friend will have heard me mention the Secretary of State for Education—a lovely man, although he has some energetic views. What we really need is time to see whether the Government are engaging in joined-up policy. How does the abolition of the EMA affect participation and how will it increase mobility? The same applies to the abolition of the Aimhigher programme. We simply have not had the time and I do not think we will have the time in five hours to debate that.

[Mr David]

As already noted, the statutory instrument applies only to England, but a number of Welsh colleagues have been in active dialogue with our friends in the Welsh Assembly. A different regime, of course, will be implemented there. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be good for debate if we had ample time to bring forward the Welsh experience so that we could compare it with what is going to happen in England?

[Paul Farrelly]

Indeed. I think that the Leader of the House should find time—separate time—to look at Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Business of the House

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend will have heard me announce a debate on the subject of growth, as the choice of the Backbench Business Committee, in the next fortnight, which will provide him with an opportunity to discuss this matter. The Government want to ensure that the financial sector can supply affordable credit to businesses such as the one he describes, and we would like to see more diverse sources of finance for small and medium-sized enterprises, including, where appropriate, access to equity finance.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister misled the House yesterday—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”]

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Mr David]

I am sure that it was inadvertent, as we all know. He said that Labour MEPs had voted in favour of an increase in the EU budget, but that is not the case. They voted against the increase. When the Prime Minister makes his statement to the House on Monday, perhaps he could correct the inadvertent mistake that he made.

[Sir George Young]

I refer the hon. Gentleman and the House to amendment 12 of the vote of 20 October, which clearly states the need to take into account the fiscal restraint being shown by member states, and calls for a freeze in the annual budget at 2010 levels. Conservatives and Liberal Democrats voted in favour; Labour voted against.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Wayne David Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Field]

I must confess that I totally accept the need to equalise electorates, which is why I have tabled amendments in a later group, which I suspect we will not get to, suggesting that we leave out of the Bill the gerrymandering—there is no other word to use—of three Scottish seats. That has occurred through a limit of 13,000 sq km being plucked out of the sky to allow Ross, Skye and Lochaber, and probably also Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, to be seen as exceptional. If we equalise constituencies it could be regrettable for such communities, but we want electorates of a similar size.

In fairness to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), I think that equal constituencies will mean that we divide the country up into 10 or 15 different areas, from which we can draw up the 600 seats, rather than suddenly realising when we get to the middle of Scotland that we are 10 or 15 seats short. I fully accept the need to equalise electorates, and it is greatly to be regretted that we are not doing that for all seats. It seems that a rather grubby little compromise has been put in place. In the modern, technological era, I disagree with the idea that the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland, the two smallest seats in the UK, should be protected. Orkney and Shetland was part of the Wick Burghs constituency at one time during the last century, and the Western Isles were part of the Ross and Cromarty and Inverness-shire constituencies. It is a bogus argument that those constituencies somehow have great historical relevance.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman said that in his view there had been a grubby little compromise. That is quite a statement to make. Would he like to explain and elaborate on exactly what he means?

[Mr Field]

I believe that the compromise was perhaps made to keep the Scottish nationalists happy—[Interruption.] Well, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) represents virtually no constituents in this House. I respect that, but we are living in a technological age of e-mails and so on, and I do not agree with the notion that he should maintain the privileged position of representing just 23,000 constituents, when many of us have to represent not only our statutory 70,000 or so but a significant number of non-UK nationals. There is a perfectly good case to be made, but it should not override the idea of equalising communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Austin Mitchell]

I have to say that I cannot. If the work is done properly and the job is properly tackled, it is difficult. Indeed, I cannot see how people can have outside jobs and be here.

[Mr David]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the important point is not just that we take up individual cases, but that having that direct contact with our constituents influences our work as parliamentarians?

[Austin Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Many of the ideas that I raised, the questions that I have asked and the things that I have debated in Westminster Hall come from constituents and constituency problems. That is the nature of democracy—that is how it has to be. We have to face the fact that the state is interacting with people and imposing things on them more than ever before.

Let us look at the flood of problems that we have had with the Child Support Agency, and the fact that a special hotline has had to be created for MPs, so that they can get through to Belfast and have incomprehensible conversations. [Interruption.] I appreciate the difficulties that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) face doing that kind of job—if I could make it easier, I would—but it creates an enormous amount of extra work for us. The same is true of tax credits, which are extremely complex. There is all that interaction, and believe me, Ms Primarolo, there will be a lot more interaction as a result of the cuts announced today, as people come to us with problems to do with benefits, invalidity and cutting off job support. That is going to create a lot more work for us in our constituencies and a lot more work in our surgeries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Absolutely, Ms Primarolo. I am sorry that I got slightly carried away, as a result of that intervention, in anticipating what might happen in the future.

I tabled my amendment for discussion because in the general election we promised that there would be 585 MPs, because we needed that number and it would reduce the costs of Parliament, but we are now proposing 600. That means that the costs will be reduced by less than they would have been had we opted for 585. Given what we have heard today, it appears that when the books were opened they were even worse than the worst fears of my right hon. Friends in the Government. Surely it is inconsistent with the spending decisions taken today to row back from a figure of 585 to one of 600. That gives credence to the charge made against the coalition Government that, although 600 is an arbitrary figure, it is not quite as arbitrary as we might be led to believe, because it is based on some private work that has been done suggesting that it might be to the advantage of the coalition partners, rather than the Labour party.

[Mr David]

The hon. Gentleman refers to “private work”. Would he like to elaborate on who might have undertaken it, because he makes a fascinating point?

[Mr Chope]

Ms Primarolo, you have already criticised me for speculating, and I am certainly not going to speculate. All I am saying is that, before this House gives approval to a reduction in the number of MPs to a fixed number of 600, the case needs to be made and we need something more than an assertion that it is an arbitrary figure, that it accords with the public mood and that it meets the needs of this House. None of those things has been established. Apart from anything else, even if I agreed with such a move, I would not support it unless I could see evidence of a pro rata reduction in the number of Ministers and the size of the Executive, and thereby not a dilution of this House’s ability to hold the Executive to account. That is my modest contribution, but I make it clear that I intend to seek re-election in the next Parliament, be there 600 or 585 constituencies, or the current number.

Business of the House

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

It sounds as though my hon. Friend will have a very good attendance for his ten-minute Bill on 20 October. He has raised an important issue, and I hope that either the Backbench Business Committee or the Procedure Committee will see whether there is a better way of allocating those slots. My initial response, however, is that it is a matter for the Procedure Committee rather than the Government.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I am told that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions informed a Select Committee yesterday that the announcement of a £4 billion cut in welfare spending was nothing to do with him. May we have a debate on who exactly is responsible for welfare spending and welfare reform? Is it the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions?

[Sir George Young]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions gave evidence to the Select Committee at length yesterday, and he dealt with those issues then. We also heard a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer about welfare reform on Monday. The position is that some 30% of public expenditure is on welfare, and there is no way we can balance the books without examining that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has recognised that he will have to make some savings in his budget, and the House will have to await the outcome of the CSR to discover his conclusions.

Business of the House

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

As I hope I said to the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), legislation will be needed to make the changes to housing benefit, so there will be ample time for the House to debate those issues.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill will lead to a 25% reduction in Welsh representation in this House. In the light of that, will the Leader of the House support the request made by the shadow Secretary of State for Wales for a special meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee to consider the implications of the Bill for Wales?

[Sir George Young]

I would have thought that that was exactly the sort of issue that could be raised as the Bill goes through the House. Wales will be in exactly the same position as the rest of the country, and I cannot see what is wrong with that.

Business of the House

Wayne David Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

There was a statement on the matter yesterday. Furthermore, I have announced a debate on Afghanistan in the first week back, at the initiative of the Backbench Business Committee. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity after the recess to raise the concerns that he has outlined.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

In the light of the comments made by the Leader of the House today, might it not be appropriate to have a debate on whether the title of Deputy Prime Minister should be changed to “Deputy Prime Minister in a Personal Capacity”?

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the House. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House.