Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree very much with the hon. Lady. Last night’s vote will be seen not just as one that ensured a proper element of equality, but one that helps us to build a stronger and fairer society. Many of the speeches made last night were very moving and emotional. I pay tribute to all those people who have made the case—some have made it for many years—that they want their love to count the same way as a man and woman’s love for each other counts. That is what we have opened in this country, and why I am proud this Government brought it forward.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

For years, young people in Goole and Brigg have had some of the lowest per pupil school funding in the country. This is now becoming critical for counties such as the East Riding of Yorkshire. Will the Prime Minister look closely not just at the 40 authorities, but specifically at the low level of per pupil funding that the East Riding of Yorkshire receives?

[The Prime Minister]

I will look closely at what my hon. Friend has said, but I will make a couple of points. Within the education budget we have prioritised per pupil funding, so there has not been a reduction in per pupil funding. It is very important that schools can see forward to future years to the sorts of budgets that they will have, given the roll of children coming to their school. The second thing we have done, through the academy programme, is to encourage the devolution of more of the schools budget to schools directly, and I still think there is more we can achieve on that agenda.

Voting Age

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but he reinforces my point. If a decision was made to reduce the age of majority to 16, in three or four decades’ time this House would be full of people saying, “That was years ago, we ought to consider making it 14. People made that decision long ago and they are far away.”

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I apologise for missing the start of the debate, but I was in a Select Committee. My hon. Friend has already stated that if the age were reduced to 16, turnout would be very low. Does he think that adding a whole set of people to the electoral roll when the majority of them will not vote will in any way enhance our democracy? The simple fact that people cannot vote at that age does not stop them from being politically engaged.

[Mr Nuttall]

Indeed, there is nothing to stop a young person who is politically motivated from going along and joining Conservative Future—or, if they were particularly misguided, the equivalent group in the other parties.

I am conscious that I have used up my unofficial allocation of time, but I think I have made some points that give the other side of the argument. We do not want only to hear young people’s views. Millions of people in this country think that the age at which people can vote should remain at 18 and it is important that those arguments, as well as all the others, are heard today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I would rather not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because the Deputy Speaker is keen for us all to get in.

In recent days, I have held a survey in my Leicester South constituency. Interestingly, apart from the over-50s, those who have taken part in my survey are overwhelmingly in favour of allowing 16-year-olds to vote.

[Andrew Percy]

How many people took part?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I understand that the respondents are arguably self-selecting, and it is not a scientific survey, but the results are interesting none the less. On the other hand, just for balance, there was a vox pop on Radio Leicester this morning, in which people said that they did not think that 16-year-olds would understand the issues or be interested. I have to say, as many other Opposition Members have done, that when I speak to year 11 groups, or to sixth forms, as I will tomorrow at Madani high school, I find that young people are very much engaged. They may not be interested in the cut and thrust of party political debate in this place, but they are certainly interested in the issues that affect them.

All my life, I have seen Chancellors of the Exchequer of both parties pull rabbits out of hats in the Budget statement in this place, and it is usually some sort of give-away to pensioners. Whatever party the Chancellor is from, the party members behind him cheer and wave their Order Papers. We do it because we know that we can put that give-away on our leaflets and in our direct mail, and we know that pensioners vote. I suspect that if 16-year-olds had the vote, we would be less cavalier about trebling tuition fees to £9,000, abolishing the education maintenance allowance, and levels of youth unemployment, because we would be worried about those young people having their say at the ballot box. It is entirely fair that they should. They do not all have to vote; we are talking about giving them the opportunity to vote.

I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) divides the House; I get the impression that he will. If it is the will of the House that 16-year-olds should have the vote, will the Minister think about allowing them to vote in next year’s European elections? Then we could look at the level of engagement, and at whether that galvanises people. Perhaps she will comment on that when she sums up. The proposal seems entirely fair and right; let us just get on with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). I know what it feels like to be a lone voice, on the nationalist Benches. I totally and fundamentally disagree that allowing the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds has any impact whatsoever on childhood. The voice that we do not hear in the House is that of young people. If we give young people the vote, we will get to hear that voice, and it is a voice that I will welcome.

[Andrew Percy]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) on securing this debate. As a former youth worker, I agree with him on how important it is. I have to say to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that it is not “new and trendy”; we have been having debates about votes at 16 ever since I started to do youth work, which, sadly, I must admit was a considerable number of years ago. Leading youth-led organisations such as the British Youth Council and the UK Youth Parliament are very actively campaigning for votes at 16.

Last week I went to St James primary school in Daisy Hill in my constituency to present prizes for my Christmas card competition. I talked to the young people about Parliament and being an MP, and told them about this debate. I took a vote on whether they thought that 16-year-olds should be allowed to vote. Interestingly, all but a handful of pupils thought that they should be given the vote at 16, but all the staff voted against, which I found quite sad. I told them that I would report their vote to Parliament today, as it is representative of the many young people I have spoken to about this issue.

A few weeks ago, I chaired the all-party parliamentary group on youth affairs. This APPG is very different from the majority of APPGs in that different organisations bring in young people to debate issues with parliamentarians. I encourage many more of my colleagues to come along to the APPG. At that meeting, we debated votes at 16 and, again, the vast majority of the young people attending believed that the vote should be given to 16-year-olds.

[Andrew Percy]

Of course, the young people with whom the hon. Lady is engaging are those who are already engaged in politics. We have a huge problem in this country in that, sadly, the vast majority of young people are not engaged in politics. It would therefore be better to focus on the 18 to 24-year-olds who are not engaged, the majority of whom do not vote at the moment. We should get them voting and then we can extend it.

[Julie Hilling]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I believe absolutely that if we start to encourage voting at an early age, where that is supported and people are educated about their rights and responsibilities, we can make voting a lifelong activity, and concentrating on 18 to 24-year-olds misses that huge opportunity. I will say a little more about that later.

Let me talk about some of the things that the young people at the APPG said. Yes, they are young people who are engaged. However, an important point about youth organisations and youth workers is that we actively go out to engage not only with those aspiring young people, but with young people from all walks of life to enable them to have their say in civil society. Carly stated that many young people are dissatisfied with local issues but struggle to know how to become properly involved in politics. She argued that there was a need for better education and noted that not all adults made arguments based on solid reasoning. Another young person stated that political apathy from some young people is not a valid reason to exclude those young people who are engaged, and noted that not all adults vote. Steve said that a lot of older people lacked an interest in political engagement and awareness but the same ideas about requiring a level of knowledge for 16 and 17-year-olds was not placed on people over 18. A number of young people argued that politicians are able to ignore their views because they do not have the vote, and compared the loss of education maintenance allowance and the increase in tuition with the protection of benefits given to the grey vote.

Some voices were raised against enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds. One young person felt that they should not be enfranchised because they do not have experience of life outside the home, but she was challenged by someone who argued that many people now do not move out of their home until they are in their thirties, so that is not a valid reason to stop them having the vote.

The main thrust of the arguments against changing the voting age was lack of knowledge, and very strong opinions were voiced, both by those in support of votes at 16 and by those against, for the need for effective citizenship education in schools. They also argued that it should be part of the Ofsted inspection framework to ensure that such education was being carried out in all schools in a good way.

I am sure that we have all knocked on the doors of people who do not vote because they do not know how to do so or who to vote for. I believe that we have a duty in a civilized society to educate people about their civil duties, including voting. If done effectively, that should increase turnout by all future voters.

Many schools already undertake a lot of activities, such as mock elections, at the time of general elections, but, sadly, that rarely happens each year, meaning that four cohorts can miss out altogether.

That encouragement to vote—enabling young people to understand the political process and to vote at 16—should be viewed as positive. Voting at 16 would instil a pattern for lifelong voting. However, whether or not we believe that the voting age should be lowered, we clearly should be doing more to educate young people and, indeed, older people about how and why to vote.

We can all bandy polls about and I want to quote an online poll from The Guardian, which found that 53% of people were in favour of lowering the voting age. Of course, if a more right-wing paper conducted a similar poll, it may well come up with a different answer, but one accusation that cannot be levelled against readers of The Guardian is that they are not deep thinkers who will not have considered the pros and cons of lowering the voting age.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for pressing that point, and I will come on to deal with the fact that we do not have a single age of majority in this country. Hon. Members on all sides have debated whether we ought to have a single age and what it should be, and the debate has covered both axes of the argument. I was taken by the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan)—we should not be protecting young people from democracy.

[Andrew Percy]

The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) did indeed name me, but is not the point that although we may be debating the age at which people can vote, whatever our view on that we all want to see young people engaged? Opposing a reduction of the voting age to 16 does not make us any less in favour of wanting to get more young people involved in the political process.

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend makes part of my argument for me, for which I am grateful.

As I have said, we ought not to amend something as important as the electoral franchise without a clear case for doing so. I note that there are great divergences of opinion in wider society. Most studies and polls show that a majority of 16 and 17-year-olds favour lowering the voting age—perhaps that is not surprising—but the situation is not always clear. A 2009 YouGov survey of 14 to 25-year-olds conducted for the Citizenship Foundation, another organisation for which I am sure hon. Members have great respect, showed that a majority of that age group—some younger and some older than those in the category we are debating—opposed votes for 16-year-olds: only 31% were in favour, but 54% were against. That provides food for thought and gives hon. Members something to think about on the question of who is likely to say, “Yes, I’d like 16-year-olds to have the franchise,” and who is likely to come to other interesting conclusions.

Hon. Members have raised the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland.

Immigration

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Field]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s introductory remark, but I gave way because I do not have such a carefully crafted speech as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex had. If the hon. Gentleman can bear with me until I reach the end of my contribution, he will know what steps I would like the Government to take.

I want to raise three issues and to pose three questions for the Government, first on the Olympics, secondly on the mountain we must climb, and thirdly on the action that the Government need to take if they are to fulfil a pledge that is supported not merely by Conservative voters, but by Labour voters.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Field]

No—not for a moment anyway.

First, on the Olympics, I am probably the last person to confess that I was disappointed when the announcement that we had won the Olympics was made. I feared that we would not perform well in organising the games, and that they were an opportunity for a terrorist outrage that would indelibly mark our country in the eyes of the world. I am pleased to accept that I was wrong on both counts.

I am also delighted that another success was not only our tally of medals, but the fact that people who won them had come to this country with their families to make a new life. They were so committed to us that they wanted not only to participate, but to win for this country. How does the Immigration Minister interpret those events? So many people come here and are so committed, and yet at the same time some second generation people harbour such terrible thoughts in their hearts about us that, as far as we know, they want to take terrible action against us. How can part of immigration be so successful, and part of it result in those thoughts? That is my first question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Field]

I shall finish this point and then give way.

What will happen if we do not meet the objective? Our constituents, whose wages will probably be falling, will be able to buy far less than hitherto with their wage packets. That is the urgency.

[Andrew Percy]

I associate myself very much with the right hon. Gentleman’s words. Does he believe that part of the mountain we must climb is opening up the issue of EU immigration, which is completely uncontrollable? There have been massive amounts of such immigration to my constituency, particularly in Goole, which is having a big impact on schooling, health, employment and housing. It is a fallacy for any hon. Member to suggest that we have controlled immigration or could ever have it if we leave EU immigration unaddressed.

[Mr Field]

The hon. Gentleman makes a point with which many hon. Members will sympathise. During the recession, which will clearly last longer than any since the war, the Government ought to think about what temporary measures they should take to ensure that the country’s labour market is protected for those who, until recently, were working, and for others coming to the labour market who wish to work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

What I would say about the police and crime commissioners is that we have not yet had the elections. We are going to have elections in November, and this is a very good opportunity to broadcast from this House what an important set of elections those are. I want to see a new form of accountability coming through in our police forces, and this is an excellent reform. I am sure that many people want to turn out and vote, hopefully for their local Conservative candidate.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Over the summer, a number of communities across Brigg and Google, including Swinefleet and Crowle, suffered flooding, in part because our drainage dykes are not cleared out as drainage boards fear prosecution under conservation of habitats legislation. Will the Prime Minister meet his new Environment Secretary and take away that threat of prosecution, so that drainage dykes that were built and dug to protect property can do their job?

[The Prime Minister]

As someone who represents a constituency that has frequently been subject to very bad flooding, I know how many frustrations there can be in local communities when things that need to be done do not get done quickly enough. Sometimes that is the fault of different agencies, sometimes that of landowners, sometimes that of local authorities. All sorts of issues have to be crunched through, but I am sure that the Environment Secretary will have listened closely to what my hon. Friend said.

Regional Pay

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

My entire career has been spent being part of the national health service. My grandmother was an NHS matron, and I came into politics when the hospital in which I was born and which saved my mother’s life was threatened with closure. In 2011 I was diagnosed with a tumour and spent several weeks in London NHS hospitals. I saw all that was good in those hospitals and literally owe my life to the treatment I received. I will be for ever grateful.

If I took one thing in particular away from that experience, it was an understanding of just how many individuals are involved in making the whole process work. From the porter and the nurse to the physiotherapist, the care lady and the cleaner, everyone is just as important as each other. I think that all Members of the House should remember that when we talk about the public sector, we are talking about not only the unions and Unite but the care lady who looks after our mothers and the dinner lady who keeps our children safe at lunch time and provides them with food. It is much more personal than the dry debates we engage in.

There are two key arguments in the debate, the first of which is economic. Having worked as a legal aid barrister or state prosecutor for 15 years, I should declare that I, like many public sector workers, am still owed money by the state, notwithstanding the fact that I stopped working for the state on a legal aid basis two years ago. It was during that time that I saw the effects of local pay, as it is described, and took into account the argument of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)—as usual, he is absent from his place—who first contemplated it in 2003 and then forced it on the courts service in 2007.

As with so many of the right hon. Gentleman’s economic policies, I see little evidence that local pay was a success. I have tried to study the economic argument behind it, which is based on the Heckscher-Ohlin factor proportions theory and various academic studies performed by august institutions such as the London School of Economics. I do not support such arguments, which are obscure at best and have not been shown to work in real terms. Also—surely this is the crucial point—it is not supported by businesses in my constituency, none of which has come to me to press for it.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I agree entirely with everything my hon. Friend has said so far. The other reason we do not support regional pay is the facts. In my region, the Humber, we cannot get NHS workers to come and work and have to consider paying them more. A few years ago we could not get teachers to teach in the city of Hull and had to give them an enhanced salary to do it. Whatever the economics, the reality is that we cannot get some public sector workers to come to my region. How we would do that if we paid them even less is beyond me.

[Guy Opperman]

I also believe that regional pay is divisive and manifestly unfair. Members who read The Daily Telegraph today—obviously, that includes many on the Opposition Benches—will know that it has criticised me personally for leading the opposition to these divisive plans. It must be very rare to be criticised by The Daily Telegraph and praised by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) all on the same day. I was interested when I read on to find that its argument is that pay distortions are

“economically destructive. They make it harder for businesses in the regions to recruit workers at competitive wage rates and as a consequence they stifle enterprise.”

That is not what individual businesses, whether small or large, in my constituency and elsewhere in the north-east are saying to me, however.

This Government, like previous Governments in 2003 and 2007, are right to look at all potential options for boosting growth, and I have no difficulty with them referring the matter for consideration by the pay review body, but ultimately this will not find business support or create the prospect of business growth in the regions that we represent, and we should not support it if it becomes Government policy.

The majority of public sector workers in my region are doing their bit already. They are hard working, and along with the vast majority of my constituents they accept that the Government are right to reduce the deficit, to cut public sector spending, to reform public sector pensions, to freeze pay in some areas and to eradicate some of the non-jobs and excesses that we saw before 2010. That is accepted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The reason increased employment in the public sector destroys jobs in the private sector is that every public sector job has to be paid for by the private sector. The public sector creates no wealth. It spends wealth that is taxed from the private sector. If it does not come from tax immediately, it comes from delayed taxation through borrowing. That is the connection. Increasing employment in the public sector increases the burden on the private sector and destroys the ability of the private sector to compete globally.

[Andrew Percy]

I usually agree with my hon. Friend, but will he explain why a schoolteacher in Hull or Grimsby, who faces some of the most challenging schoolchildren in the country and even more challenging parents, should be paid less than a schoolteacher doing exactly the same job elsewhere in the country? That is the problem that my constituents have with this proposal.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes a mistake in assuming that the policy will automatically lead to lower pay. Pay will be set by market forces. If it was difficult to employ schoolteachers in his constituency, teachers in that area would have to be paid more than the market rate until it had the required number of teachers.

[Andrew Percy]

There is not a bigger pot of money.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Of course there is not a bigger pot of money, but if we allow competition to work, it will increase the local economy, which means that more money will be gathered in through council tax and the area will have the ability to pay more for the public sector that it needs.

The problem with what we are doing at the moment is that it impoverishes the poor. It keeps the poorest areas of the country poor for as long as possible. I know that Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends are in favour of the current situation not because they want to keep the poorest areas poor, but for the most noble and romantic of motives. However, their noble approach to this issue is fundamentally wrong. They think that it is fair to ensure that everybody is paid the same, but if by doing that we destroy employment in certain areas and make more people dependent on the state, we are not acting in the broader interests of society.

Debate on the Address

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

It is a delight to be called to speak in this debate on the Gracious Speech. I want to dwell on one or two of its themes that are of great interest to my constituents and on one that is of absolutely no interest to them. Before I do, I should reflect a little on what has been achieved by the Government and where there is still room for improvement.

Like most Members, I came to the House to do good—not as a do-gooder, but to do good for my constituents. I came here as a Conservative in the belief that I would be able to rebalance how hard-working folk in Brigg and Goole, and beyond, are treated. In some respects, the Government have made progress; some of the changes to the benefit system have made work pay, and I support those wholeheartedly, as do my constituents. When they speak to me in the street or I knock on their doors, they generally say that they support the benefit cap and changes to entitlement programmes. Similarly, I am delighted that the Government have been able to freeze council tax, which doubled under the previous Government, for the past two years.

However, there have also been things that I have not felt comfortable with and which I do not think have in any way rebalanced fairness or rewarded those who try hard and want to do the best for themselves and their families. That is why I have voted against a number of measures, although I have voted with the Government on the vast majority of occasions—about 90% of the time. In any other job, I would be a slavish loyalist out for promotion, but in this place if a Government Member votes a couple of per cent. of the time against the Government, they are a serial rebel.

On issues such as the bedroom tax and changes to council house tenancies, I think that the Government got it wrong. Similarly, I do not yet think that the Government have rebalanced things as they should have in favour of hard-working citizens on issues such as immigration and law and order. Some of that, of course, is because we find ourselves in a coalition Government.

The other day, I was asked on Radio Humberside, which I am sure many hon. Members listen to, whether it was right for my colleagues to say that the Government were not Conservative enough. I said that that was right. It is a simple fact. Just as the Government are not Lib Dem enough for Lib Dems, they are not Conservative enough for Conservatives.

I say to Conservative Front Benchers that many of the pitfalls and traps into which we seem to have walked in the past few months—indeed, the past couple of years—have been those that our coalition colleagues have advised us to advance towards. Perhaps the message should be that sometimes we should stick with our gut. I hope that, in so far as anybody in this place listens to speeches from Back Benchers, that message will be taken back to the powers that be in Whitehall and elsewhere.

I welcome much in the Gracious Speech. I mentioned the themes of particular interest to my constituents. I welcome the draft social care Bill. Social care is the biggest challenge facing our country and, like many Members who have spoken, I hope that we will be able to advance on it on a cross-party basis. In my view, there is one opportunity to get the issue right. There are huge pressures, not only on the NHS but on local authorities, and they will only increase. I say to Front Benchers that we must advance in a way that protects those who have tried to make provision for themselves and have worked hard.

Many in my constituency have worked hard, got a private pension and tried incredibly hard during their working lives but now face the prospect of having to sell their homes to pay for care. That absolutely has to be taken into account. Labour Front Benchers have made it clear that the matter should not be kicked into the long grass, and they are right—although I question whether they made any progress on the issue when they were in power. We must not rush, either, because we must get it right.

I look forward to the reforms on special educational needs and support for disabled people. As I know from my previous employment as a schoolteacher, those issues definitely need to be addressed. We have to improve how the statementing process works and that is why I welcome its replacement with the integrated education, health and care plans. If those simplify the process for families and young people, as I hope a single assessment will, that will be all to the better. I also say to Ministers, who I am sure are listening, that we must ensure that those plans are supported with proper statutory obligations across the various agencies involved, including academies and free schools.

I look forward to the changes to access rights for divorced fathers, and I hope that they will provide another opportunity for us to push forward the issue of grandparents’ rights, which are supported on both sides of the House.

What are the most important issues? I have heard a lot from people on my side about what happened in the local elections last week. We did not have any on my patch, but I have heard a great deal about them. People have talked about House of Lords reform and other issues, but such matters are not why the coalition parties did so badly. The people of Brigg and Goole are not worried about House of Lords reform or other matters; they are worried about the economy and job creation, both of which are struggling at the moment.

As I have watched this debate in my office and in the Chamber, I have been surprised by some of the comments from Labour Members about what they left to this country. I know that they will attempt to gloss over their record, but given the area that I represent—the Humber, east Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire; only two or three Members representing that area were born and bred there—I do not recognise the glory days of the previous Administration. During their time in power, the Humber lost manufacturing jobs and the number of private sector jobs was lower in 2010, when they left office, than it was in 1997. We also faced the prospect of Labour’s dreaded ports tax, which would have killed jobs in our successful ports such as Goole, Immingham and Hull. We also saw no action regarding the Humber bridge, which, since its creation, has divided our sub-regional economy. Now this Government have acted to halve the tolls on the Humber bridge.

Ministers are absolutely right to tell us that they want to prioritise jobs and economic growth, and I hope that they will continue do so. I have two warnings for them from my region, one of which they will have heard plenty about recently—the prospect of the caravan tax. Some 90% of manufacturing in this industry is located in east Yorkshire, and thousands of jobs are involved. Many of the people working in that industry are already on three-day weeks. The Government’s own projections for the impact of the tax suggest a further 30% reduction in static caravan sales. This is a successful industry, most of which is deployed in the United Kingdom. The supply chain is almost wholly within the UK, and there are thousands of jobs on caravan parks up and down the country. I hope that the Government will listen to what is being said about this, and I think that they are starting to do so.

I completely support a lot of the changes that have been made in the public sector, including on pensions. I would be happy to defend those to my former colleagues, some of whom are probably not too keen to drink with me these days as they see the proposed changes to teachers’ pensions. I defend all those changes, because it is clear that in the past few years the state became too big and the gap between public sector pensions and private sector pensions became too wide. However, the Government need to proceed extremely carefully on regional pay. In the Humber, we have struggled to attract people into teaching. When I was a local councillor in Hull, we had to come up with the so-called Hull offer whereby we had to pay people more to come and teach in local schools. A few weeks ago, when my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and I were at a meeting with our local hospital trust, we were told that the trust was unable to attract doctors to come and work in our NHS trust area and would possibly have to consider paying more as a consequence.

Some people in the public sector understandably feel that they are being targeted at the moment. There is undoubtedly an issue with pay in the south-east of England, but it would be morally wrong to take money from public sector workers in the north of England to solve a problem that exists in the south. Taking money out of the public sector in an area such as Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire, which is very reliant on it, can only have a knock-on effect on the private sector. Ministers need to be very careful as they move forward on this issue. I do not rule the policy out completely, but we need to see more detail. When the previous Government introduced academies, they conceded the principle of allowing schools to set their own pay and conditions, and they introduced that in HM Courts and Tribunals Service.

House of Lords reform is one issue in the Gracious Speech that is of absolutely no interest to my constituents. I have not been regularly stopped while doing my shopping in Goole and elsewhere by people saying, “But Andrew, what we really want is for you to get on and reform the House of Lords.” As it happens, I think that the Government are right to raise the issue, as I support reform of the House of Lords. When I came here, I was told that it was packed full of talent and the debates were wonderful. Doubtless there are some very good people in there, but there are also people who have absolutely no legitimacy and no right to sit there, and are perhaps not necessarily as in touch with the country as it is today as they should be. However, by reforming something one can make it a lot worse. The Government’s proposals for 15-year non-renewable terms would do nothing to inject democracy into the House of Lords. I would like a 90% to 100% elected Chamber with those elections taking place at the same time as the general election and people serving five-year terms. I say that as a history teacher and somebody who does not like to see traditions swept aside lightly. Indeed, were it not for the House of Lords in these past few months, the Government might not have seen sense on matters such as the chief coroner and, recently, on mesothelioma.

I understand the important role that the House of Lords plays in our democracy, but the Government’s proposals do not stand up to much scrutiny and would not do much to inject democracy. They should press ahead with having a debate on the issue, but the current proposals would not enjoy my support, especially as they involve using a voting system—the single transferable vote—on which the public have had no say. I think that we can safely say after last year’s referendum on the alternative vote that the public have voted against moving to a more proportional system and want to retain first past the post; certainly, that was their choice.

I look forward to many of the proposals in the Queen’s Speech, which has three policy areas of which I am particularly supportive. I commend the Government for prioritising jobs and the economy. I also commend them for taking the action that we have already seen in the Humber, where in many areas they have done an awful lot of good—although there is a risk that that could be undone by the caravan tax and regional pay. Broadly speaking, I welcome this Gracious Speech and look forward to the forthcoming debates.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was interested to listen to the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), whose speech was remarkable for one thing, as has been the case with so many speeches. We are currently seeing a fundamental clash in Europe between democracy and austerity that has been reflected in the polls in France and Greece, and indeed in Britain in the local government elections, with a choice between growth and making cuts to get down the deficit. There seems to be no acknowledgement of the fact that we are hurtling towards a fundamental change that will mean the end of the euro and perhaps the end of Europe as we know it. We need to focus on the need for proactive growth to invest in the capacity for productivity across Europe and to change course while we see the emergence of the far-right-wing parties that have been mentioned by my colleagues. Instead, however, the main preoccupation is still with the House of Lords.

I am sure that people like to talk about the intricacies of the House of Lords—about whether having someone elected for 15 years without re-election is really democracy, whether there will be a clash of democracies between the different Chambers and so on—but I think we all know that this is a very difficult issue, and that this is not the time to confront it when we are facing such severe economic issues on our doorsteps and such fundamental changes in the nature of Europe and our exporting prospects.

[Andrew Percy]

I am not sure whether my accent was the problem, but I think I made it very clear that House of Lords reform was a completely marginal issue of absolutely no interest to my constituents. As I said time and again, my constituents expect that the economy and growth should be the priority.

[Geraint Davies]

I am not talking about whether the hon. Gentleman and others referenced growth, but whether they took any notice at all of the fact that across Europe we are seeing these fundamental changes. The economic orthodoxy wants to ignore the wishes of people who are being downtrodden by these austerity measures, and we are facing a real challenge as regards the future of democracy in parts of Europe, the future of the euro, and the future of the European Community. In this year of her diamond jubilee, the Queen should have been given the opportunity to demonstrate that the Government are showing greater leadership by example in developing a proper, coherent strategy for delivering growth instead of cuts to get the deficit down. Instead, we have had the same old medicine with the familiar side effects of less money being spent in the public sector, leading to less money in the private sector and a downward spiral of unemployment and poverty. We have seen that across Europe.

What we need in the UK and Europe is a combination of fiscal stimulus and co-ordinated investment. The party with the best record on growth is of course the Labour party. Between 1997 and 2008 there was unprecedented and continuous growth that we had not seen since the war. In 2008, of course, we faced the financial tsunami, and to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and Barack Obama, the introduction of the fiscal stimulus enabled the world to avoid depression and deliver shallow growth into 2010. Then the Conservatives took over a deficit that was two-thirds caused by financial institutions and one-third caused by the Labour party investing beyond earnings to continue growth. Their immediate response was to announce half a million job cuts, which deflated consumer demand and led to negative growth. Indeed, the deficit projection is up by £150 billion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

He is an economist.

[Andrew Percy]

All the more reason to ignore him.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Yes, and no doubt five different views could be advanced.

We all agree about the key point of the Queen’s Speech and the challenge facing this country. When I talk to my constituents in Dover and Deal and ask, “What is your priority?”, they say, “It’s the economy, stupid”—President Clinton made much of that point in his first election campaign. The economy is the heartland, and it is essential that we have more jobs and money in Britain. We have had a very difficult time for the past four years, and the situation is challenging for many families in my constituency, who are struggling to get by and have not had a pay rise for a very long time. They are struggling to keep hold of a job while we seek to rebuild out of the mess that went before. I therefore particularly welcome the fact that the Government’s first priority is to reduce the deficit and restore economic stability.

The hon. Member for Swansea West has a prescription along the lines of saying that if we did not cut so far and so fast, all would be fine. The difficulty with that is that we would need to borrow more money. If we did that, we would threaten our economic credibility, which would mean rising interest rates on Government debt. If that happened, interest rates would increase for businesses and home owners.

We have been lucky because we have the same level of deficit as Greece, but the markets trust our economic policy and our cracking down on and reducing the deficit. That means that our interest rates are similar to those in Germany, while we still have a deficit the size of Greece’s, albeit one that is falling.

[Andrew Percy]

There is another point to be made. The Opposition position is almost like telling someone with a £10,000 credit card bill, “Go and get another £5,000 on the credit card because you’ll feel a bit better today.” However, at some time in the future, the credit card company will come knocking. The Labour party wants us to increase the £120 million in debt interest every day by borrowing even more, which would mean that we had even less to invest in the public services that our constituents want and deserve.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend is right. One does not fix a debt crisis by borrowing more money—it makes no sense. It is the economics of the madhouse, because we would have more debt to service over the long term. It would take us longer to pay it, thereby mortgaging our children’s futures for longer, and interest rates would rise. Under the Government, interest rates have fallen, and that has done much to ensure that we have more money to invest in public services than would have been the case under the previous Government.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman supposes that if the previous Government’s economic policies had continued, the markets would have played along, and the music would have kept playing. Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Italy are evidence against that. We are very lucky that we had a change of Government. We had a close shave, but we have managed so far, goodness willing, to escape the position into which we would otherwise have fallen. Without a shadow of a doubt, the previous Government would have taken us the way of Greece and we would have been plunged into serious economic chaos. We would not be talking about a technical double-dip recession, but a minus 5 or minus 6 double-dip recession, of the sort and on the scale that is happening in Greece. I hope that when the Office for National Statistics reviews the figures in a few months, we will see that we skirted recession, but were not in recession. Many of us feel that confidence is already rebuilding. From other surveys, many of us suspect that the ONS figures will be revised upwards, and we will find that we did not go into recession and that we may just be starting to recover.

I hope that that is the case, because our constituents have had and are having a difficult time trying to keep hold of their jobs, get a pay rise and pay their bills, which have been increasing ever faster. The Government’s policies, which focus on the economy like a laser beam, are right. We need a more flexible labour market—not a right-wing, “Let’s have the ability to hire and fire at will” policy. The OECD growth project investigated the matter at length and in detail and concluded that a flexible labour market was a key driver of economic growth. It identified another key driver as lower corporation taxes, which the Government are delivering. It also said that a certain and credible financial services and competition regulation regime, which we are rebuilding, was another key driver.

I think that the House accepts that the Financial Services Authority system—the tripartite regulation system—was an unmitigated disaster. The brainchild of the former Prime Minister and the shadow Chancellor, when it was put to the test, it was found entirely wanting. The Bank of England managed to save the secondary banking system and our general banking system in the 1970s, but this time, we had to have massive state-funded bail-outs, which cost the taxpayer a fortune. That need not and would not have happened had the FSA and the tripartite regulatory regime not been in place.

The OECD growth project is also clear that increased competition to promote enterprise and fair markets is also important. Promoting competition, free enterprise, fair markets and a level playing field for market entrants is vital. We have pro-growth policies on all those. I make no bones about the fact that I should like the Government to be more pro-growth to get the economy moving even quicker. I should like them to lever in more private investment sooner so that we can grow more quickly. However, I recognise that all government is a negotiation, and it is clearly a challenge in a coalition to have everything that we would like. From a Conservative point of view, I would like a more pro-growth policy so that we grow the economy even more quickly.

I am realistic about what we can do, but I think that we are doing a lot, and as much as we can. I can look my constituents in the eye and say that we are trying to get the economy growing as quickly as possible, that we are focused on it and that nothing matters to us more than jobs and money.

It is real cheek for the Opposition to talk about youth unemployment, for two reasons. First, it rose massively under the previous Government. Although it has increased under this Government, it has done so at a much slower rate than in the previous Parliament. Secondly, when I knock on the doors in Dover and ask people what their key concern is, they reply, “Immigration and I want my kid to have a future.” They are furious that the open borders policy that the previous Government pursued means that their children are finding it harder to get a job.

[Andrew Percy]

When my hon. Friend talked about youth unemployment figures rising under the previous Government, he failed to mention that they increased when unemployment generally was falling. For youth unemployment to be increasing now is bad enough, but for it to rise when unemployment generally is falling is a national tragedy. We have heard no apology for that.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend is right. Not only that, but if we examine the figures for job creation since the early 2000s, we see that people from the EU accession eight countries had a massive increase in the number of jobs, that that also applied among foreign nationals—people born overseas—but that employment hardly increased at all for those born in the UK.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I agree with my hon. Friend. That is the central point, which I was about to address. Employers’ difficulty is finding the right person with the skills for the job. It is incumbent on the Government to create a framework whereby people—particularly our young people—can get the skills so that they qualify and are eligible for a job, and that they have the skills that employers need. Instead of dealing with the skills deficit in our population, the previous Government thought it was easier to put a sticking plaster on it and have an open borders policy to enable employers to take people with the skills that they wanted from anywhere, rather than ensuring that our children and young people had the skills for the labour market and therefore a better future.

It is important to have stronger border control in the UK. It is also important to skill up our children because the previous Government sold us a pass on the hopes and aspirations of our young people and people who do not have great skills to get a job, promotion, more money and more skills. The Government’s emphasis on apprenticeships is essential. That is what I hear on the doorsteps in Dover. For many in the House and in the metropolitan elite, that is a difficult message, but the opinion polls show that unemployment and immigration are linked, and we should be honest about that. We should be honest with people, and tell them that we understand their concerns and are acting on them. One of the greatest things about the Government is that we have taken such strong action on apprenticeships to ensure that our people have the skills to have a job and do well in life.

The Government are nothing if they are not about aspiration, but they are also about understanding the pressures of utility bills and the costs of modern life. One really important policy in that respect is the proposed reform of the electricity market to deliver clean, secure and affordable electricity and ensure that prices are fair. The Leader of the Opposition chooses these days to forget that he was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and that he planned, with the renewable heat initiative, to load £193 on to the bills of every household in this country. He chooses to forget that, with the electricity renewable energy obligation to which he signed up, he was going to increase our power prices by 20%, and those of businesses by 30%. He goes on about the costs of living and the pressure on households, and yet chooses to forget that the responsibility for much of the increase in the cost of living lies at his door, because when he was Secretary of State, he loaded bills and balanced our carbon commitments on the backs of the poor, which was a disgusting and disgraceful thing to have done.

We cannot balance our carbon commitments on the backs of the poor, as the Labour Government wanted. We need to ensure that our carbon commitments are executed in the most cost-effective way. That means not that we should back winners or favour this or that technology, but that we should favour technologies that reduce carbon emissions at the most effective and best possible price, regardless of whether we happen to like or dislike them. That is what we owe the least well-off in our communities, and our hard-pressed families and electors.

From the detailed list of Bills in the Queen’s Speech, I want to pick out the children and families Bill, which contains an acceptance of the important principle I proposed in a ten-minute rule Bill last year: that children have the right to know, and have a relationship with, both their parents following separation. I believe that that is right and in the interests of the child and their welfare, but let me explain why. The Bill does not set out with complete clarity reasons for that provision or for the shared parental leave provision, but they are linked, because families have changed. There is a new norm, and we need to accept modern families.

Let me set out how families have changed. One can have an “olde worlde” image of the family—a bloke goes to work while the mother bounces the child on her knee or does the washing up at home. That is perhaps how it was in the 1950s, but things have not been like that for a very long time. Just about everyone I know from my generation joint works. I looked at the figures, because many of our policies seem to be aimed at people who live that kind of traditional family life, rather than at families who joint work, which is the reality.

Some things jump out from the figures on parental employment rates. Back in 1986, half of partnered mothers were in the workplace; today, 71% of them are. Whereas 25 years ago five out of 10 partnered mothers went to work; seven out of 10 now do so. The overwhelming majority of couples with children under the age of 16 both work, which has led to a wider change in respect of juggling the work-life balance.

It is not just that there are more mothers in the workplace. What about the number of men who work part time? Some people go around saying, “Only women ever look after children,” but that is also old fashioned and archaic. Things have been changing. Notably, the number of all parents in part-time work has changed, which is basically accounted for by the fact that the number of men in part-time work has risen. Official statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that 25 years ago, 696,000 men were in part-time work. That number has risen nearly fourfold to more than 2 million today. To my mind, that indicates that parents are increasingly juggling work and child care, and that there has been something of a seismic shift.

Many think, “Mothers go back to work when the child is a bit older,” but let us look at the figures. When do people go back to work? Do they wait until the child is about five and going to school, or do they go back before that? Twenty-five years ago, 27% of partnered women went back to work when the youngest child was under three years of age. In other words, two thirds of women stayed at home and brought up the child until they were at least three, and then considered going back to work. That position has reversed. Now, 63% of partnered women go back to work when the youngest child is under three.

There has been a massive social change, and we need to understand modern families and how they live. If most women are going back to work when the child is pre-school age, there is a lot of juggling and work-life balancing. Who takes the kid to school or nursery? Who collects the kid? Who looks after the child? Who takes primary responsibility in the workplace and in the home? Increasingly, most people whose children are grown up will know from their children’s lives that there is much more of a juggle and a balance of work and life.

The rate of increase of lone parents has been very great. In 1986, 15% of lone parents went back to work when their child was under three; by 2011, that had doubled to 32%. We can therefore see substantial change in families, which has consequences for family policy. The flexible parental leave provision in the children and families Bill is justified because it is necessary. It is a recognition that families juggle work and child care. It is not just a case of saying, “The mother has a baby, therefore she has maternity leave.” The situation is much more complicated, and provision should be balanced so that men and women in a family can balance that equation.

More work needs to be done on child care, for two reasons. First, the number of child care places has been broadly static for years. In 2001, there were more than 300,000 places with child minders and about 300,000 day nursery places—about 600,000 places in total. The number of places with child minders stayed static, but the number of nursery places—full day care—increased to about 600,000. In 2001, there were 600,000 places in total, but in 2008, there were around 900,000 places. The number has remained static since.

What does it mean if there are now 900,000 places? Are we catering for all the children in the country who are in need of child care? I did some back-of-the envelope calculations, and it struck me that there is potentially a shortage of child care places. There are about 13 million children in the UK, of whom roughly 3 million are pre-school age. The numbers indicate that 55% of children at pre-school have parents who both work. In other words, about 2 million children need child care, but there are only 900,000 child care places. What is happening to the other 1 million children? Who is looking after them? Is it grandparents or neighbours? There is a kind of child care apartheid. On the one hand, there is a system of nurseries that are so heavily regulated that most people cannot afford them, and on the other hand there is a system of child care for the other half that is completely unregulated. We know nothing about what is going on in that half. The right balance would be to reduce the regulation on our nurseries, increase the number of places and bring the cost of child care down so that more people can access it, because one of the biggest pressures on modern families is affording the cost of child care for pre-school children. It is an absolute nightmare—

[Andrew Percy]

My hon. Friend questions whether grandparents are doing the caring and, as I said a few moments ago, they are increasingly involved in families and are the unsung heroes of child care. Does he share my hope that additional rights for grandparents will be introduced in the next Session?

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend is a passionate campaigner on behalf of grandparents. When grandparents are constructive, they can make a powerful contribution, but a balance inevitably needs to be struck. Some grandparents like to interfere and meddle, and they can be really annoying. All parents know that some grandparents are not quite the saints that my hon. Friend suggests. Nevertheless, if grandparents play a constructive role in a child’s life, there is a lot to be said for them. My hon. Friend has been a passionate and trenchant campaigner in the cause of constructive grandparents—as opposed to destructive grandparents, who we could all do without. We all know people who know them—I hope my hon. Friend understands where I am coming from on that point.

We need more availability of nursery places and deregulation of the system. The figures show that dads are more involved in children’s lives than ever before. Father is no longer sitting behind a newspaper at the breakfast table, oblivious to the world: instead, dads are deeply engaged in children’s lives. So when it comes to separation, the question is what is in the interests of the children. What best serves the child’s welfare? I think that it is stability and the continuation of what they have known. So if a parent who has been heavily involved in the child’s life—as they are in the overwhelming majority of families—suddenly disappears off a cliff edge, it makes no sense. That is why the Government are right to enshrine in legislation the principle that children have the right to know and have a relationship with their parents. The way in which modern families live indicates strongly that that is what best serves child welfare.

I recognise that the judiciary and the legal system are, as always, about 30 years out of date and are astonishingly weak-kneed when it comes to ensuring the rights of children to know both their parents. That is wrong, and we need to send a clear legislative message, not just to anti-dad social workers but to the court system, that society has changed. We in Parliament get that society has changed. We get that we need stability for our children and that child welfare is best served by having minimum disturbance to that which they have been used to. If we send that message, real and positive change could be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Letwin]

Yes, I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend, and I should like to pray in aid the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), who said that the big society is

“something that the Labour party should instinctively understand as part of its own DNA”.

The former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), told the Labour party:

“We shouldn’t be afraid of the Big Society; we should claim it for our own”.

I hope this can bring the whole House together.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

If my right hon. Friend wants to see the big society at work, may I suggest that he look at the snow in winter clearance initiatives of East Riding and North Lincolnshire councils? They have devolved money down to local communities, enabling them last weekend to sort out snow clearance in their own way, as they wished.

[Mr Letwin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is a classic example of what I see in my own constituency, in many other rural constituencies up and down the country and increasingly in the suburbs. People are taking charge and making sure that they get what they actually need delivered locally, by people who understand the local circumstances, and in many cases much more cheaply than was previously possible from the centre.

Informal European Council

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that Britain is better off outside the eurozone, but clearly we need to get trade going with parts of the world that are growing faster, which is why these trade deals are so important to us.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

The good folk of Brigg and Goole are under no illusions about how hopelessly out of touch this House, and the Opposition side in particular, is on the European Union, but they were heartened by the Prime Minister’s veto. They are similarly under no illusion about what happens in Europe: it is where assurances are given, but ultimately breached, and a whole new set of proposals come back. What can he say to my constituents to assure them that this will not become another treaty that we end up getting sucked into?

[The Prime Minister]

We cannot be sucked into this treaty because we are out of it, and we can only go into it if all 27—soon to be 28—EU member states agree. That is the effect of the veto.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

This arrangement would also allow time after the general election for the new Parliament to meet. It did not seem appropriate to set an aggressive timetable and force overly hasty decision making. The timetable is set out so that people can have confidence that the committee will be set up.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

As the Minister knows, I thought the Bill was unnecessary and said so on Second Reading, but I cannot support the Lords amendments, because they seem equally unnecessary. Given that the Bill is primarily about the mechanism for the Dissolution of Parliament, which takes place at the end of a Parliament and over a short period, why do we have to wait until 2020 to review it?

[Mr Harper]

If my hon. Friend thinks back to our earlier debates on the Bill and its effects, he will remember that this is not just a mechanical process to do with the detail of the Dissolution itself. Rather, it is about the consequences that flow from that. Much of our debate revolved around what will happen to the nature of the parliamentary process if we have fixed terms—what will be the benefits and potential negative consequences. The reason for looking at it after a full fixed term is to enable the committee to consider whether, as I would hope, the possible positive outcomes we debated have come about, and alternatively whether some of the concerns that have been expressed on both sides of the House have been proved accurate, and then to make some recommendations and publish a report. As a consequence, this House will be in a good position to debate the matter and discover whether further legislation is needed.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman took part in many debates on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill before it was enacted, and he will remember that we set up a similar type of review mechanism to look at the operation of that legislation in respect of parliamentary boundaries. A similar type of post-legislative scrutiny and review was set up to consider precisely those issues in that legislation, therefore. I hope that deals with the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

[Andrew Percy]

Will the Minister also look at the question of the term of the Parliament, which we have discussed before?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I am happy to abolish the Government Whips Office, but I am very fond of my Whips Office. It is always best to remain in as good an odour as possible with one’s Whips.

The simple point of process is that when the Leader of the House announces in the future business—as has been said, we hope that the Backbench Business Committee will do this in future—that consideration of Lords amendments may take place, he never specifies the Bill to which that relates. That is an unfortunate way of doing business, and it might make much more sense if, in future, the Government were to announce the Bills in question. If every Member of the House had known at the beginning of the week that we were going to be dealing with this Bill today, the Chamber might have been packed to the rafters—I note that it is not. That is despite the fact that we are sure to hear a wonderful speech from the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), and many would have crowded in just to see her jacket this afternoon.

The amendment, in essence, confesses that the Government have not achieved consensus on a major constitutional change. Again, I say gently to the Minister that when any constitutional change is being made, especially when pre-legislative scrutiny has not been undertaken, when no draft legislation has been produced, when the change was not adumbrated in one of the governing parties’ manifestos and when it is a significant change from what was in the manifesto of either of the two governing parties, it is all the more important that Ministers and the Government in general proceed on the basis of consensus. Although I am often a fierce critic of the House of Lords, of its hereditary principle and of its appointment principle—I call it the “patronage principle”—I believe that the Lords plays an important stop-gap role in constitutional affairs. That is why I believe that this amendment owns up to the fact that, as Lord Butler of Brockwell put it, this legislation has been introduced

“without proper consultation, preparation or consideration.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2011; Vol. 729, c. 1080.]

For many years, we relished listening in this Chamber to Lord Cormack, the greatest par-li-a-ment-ar-i-an of his age—he used about seven syllables when saying that word. As he said, this is an

“ill thought-out, unnecessary and bad Bill.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2011; Vol. 729, c. 1087.]

There are specific problems with this amendment, most notably because it does not add anything. If their lordships think that it is a concession, they are completely mistaken, because already the Government will have to undertake post-legislative scrutiny on this legislation in the next Parliament. All the amendment does is provide for another version of post-legislative scrutiny, but such scrutiny will already have taken place four years before the date in 2020 when the amendment suggests it should occur.

I am somewhat of a suspicious mind; I think that the reason why the Deputy Prime Minister has insisted on this date in 2020 is his ambition to put up joint Liberal Democrat-Conservative candidates at the next general election and to be able to continue the coalition for two parliamentary Sessions. I say that because it was not an immaculate conception that led to this constitutional Bill; it was conceived behind the bike sheds as a result of the coalition partners—the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats—trying to fix the length of this parliamentary Session so that nobody could abscond should any difficulties arise. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) is just waving to me or whether he would like to intervene. It appears that he wishes to intervene.

[Andrew Percy]

The hon. Gentleman’s argument about joint candidates falls down because he needs to be able to find someone willing to stand as a Conservative and Liberal Democrat candidate.

[Chris Bryant]

I believe that earlier this week the Prime Minister described himself as a “Pragmatic liberal conservative Eurosceptic”—he used different arrangements of those words in different arenas, as is his wont.

In addition, the amendment presumes that not only this Parliament, but a second one will run for a full five years. If that was not the case, choosing to specify dates in June and November 2020 would be particularly bizarre, as they might fall two years into another Session. This is where the following statement by Lord Armstrong of Ilminster is correct, although I confess that I do not quite understand the first bit:

“It is all Lombard Street to a China orange that the time will come when a premature Dissolution would be to the manifest benefit of the country”.——[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2011; Vol. 729, c. 1088.]

I think that that is true. If we consider the recent history of the United Kingdom, we see that even on occasions when the Government had a decent majority, such as in 1964 and 1974—although the latter situation was more complicated—they decided to hold a new election because they felt that they needed a mandate to deal with a specific set of issues that had not arisen at the previous general election. I believe that that will happen again and that it will be in the interests of Parliament to have the greatest degree of flexibility to allow it to happen, if not to encourage it to happen. That is why this amendment, in trying to entrench not just one fixed term, but two—in the interests of the coalition rather than the country—is misguided. As I said, the amendment adds nothing because post-legislative scrutiny, a fixed part of the way in which we carry out our business, will apply to this legislation.

The Minister, charming as he is, tried to assert that fixed-term Parliaments are used in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as in relation to local government elections and so on. However, these do not seem to have been very fixed in the past few years. Indeed, in the short time that he has been in power he has already changed the term for the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the local government elections in Northern Ireland. Now the Government have just decided that there will not be a fixed term for the police commissioners, because the first term will be slightly shorter than the second one, as the Government are not going to be able to get their legislation through in time to have elections next May and so the first elections will take place next November. So I am profoundly sceptical even about the ability of the hard-line fixed-termers, such as him, to deliver a fixed-term Parliament, because of the way in which politics works.

I wish to make a few comments about the specifics of the amendment. It states:

“A majority of the members of the committee are to be members of the House of Commons.”

I do not believe that the Government consulted anyone in the Opposition on this amendment. I am sure that had the Minister done so, he would now be leaping to his feet to defend himself—it appears, therefore, that he has not sought a consensus on this constitutional change. If consultation had taken place, we might have made some suggestions about how to constitute such a committee. It might have been better to state from the outset that it should involve Members of the House of Commons. I think that we should return to the practice of the 15th and 16th centuries—I am sure I have one hon. Member on my side here—which was that Joint Committees of both Houses should have two Members of the House of Commons for every Member of the House of Lords. I admit that that was at a time when there were perhaps 60 or 70 Members of the House of Lords and 480 or so of the House of Commons, whereas they are getting towards having double the number we have in this House. None the less, while this is a democratically elected House and that is not, it would make more sense for the majority from this House to be 2:1.

I note en passant that one Member of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform—not from the Opposition side of the House—pointed out that having such a large number of members of a Joint Committee makes it very difficult to do serious business. It is quite difficult with large Select Committees, but with 24 or 26 members of a Joint Committee of both Houses, it is phenomenally difficult to make progress.

House of Lords Reform

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Conor Burns]

My hon. Friend, as always, puts his finger on it. I will come to that precise point in a moment.

I remember some years ago knocking on a door when I was standing for Southampton city council for the first time, and somebody said to me that they thought there should be one major constitutional innovation in this country, which they deemed would improve our politics dramatically. They said that anyone who actually wanted to stand for Parliament should be barred from so doing. I have to say, sometimes when I look around and listen, I have some sympathy with that. The point of the other place is that it brings into Parliament people who would not dream of putting their name forward.

My noble Friend, and my predecessor’s predecessor, Lord Eden of Winton, asked some fundamental questions in a speech in the other place last week. On what basis would candidates put themselves forward for election to a revised second Chamber? Would they bear a party ticket, and would they be answerable to any form of mandate? By what form would they be chosen by the political parties? Would there be a risk that we would be putting more and more power into the hands of the party apparatchiks? Government and Opposition Members have seen what that manipulation can mean.

I do not know whether the Deputy Prime Minister has seen the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the noble Lord Eden that the Deputy Prime Minister should be based permanently in the other place and subjected to regular parliamentary oral questions. I suspect that if he thinks the response he is getting here is fierce, it would be considerably fiercer at the other end of the building.

I wish to deal briefly with the argument that reform was in every party’s manifesto. It was, to some degree, and the Liberal Democrats, who had the most pro-reform manifesto commitment, got 23% of the vote in the general election. Labour, which was slightly more lukewarm, got 29%, and the Conservatives, who were the most lukewarm, got 36%. There is almost an argument that if we want to do things on the basis of what was in the manifestos, we should remember that the most people voted for the party that was most lukewarm on the issue.

We have to ask ourselves, as at the time of Maastricht, when all three Front-Bench teams are united on something, how do those who dissent make their view known? I say to Opposition Members that they could do no better than listen to the words of the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who was very clear in saying that

“the key question on election is whether we want a revising Chamber or a rival Chamber”,

which was why it was a question

“not for one Parliament, but for the long term.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 877-878.]

Despite manifesto commitments, he twice committed himself to a free vote in the House of Commons so that every hon. Member could put their points across.

My biggest worry is that we will create a rival to the House of Commons and to the supremacy of this place, which we will come to regret. We will have the problem of mandate creep. It may start innocuously, but I point out the words of the noble Baroness Williams when the matter was last debated in the Lords, in 2003. She said that

“I want to say simply that, having listened to many speeches on the issue of the right of a non-elected House to challenge the other place, Members on these and many other Benches in this House declare that it is not our wish to be a non-elected House.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 November 2003; Vol. 655, c. 18.]

In other words, when that place gets more democratic power under an electoral system, which the Deputy Prime Minister is on record as saying he believes to be more constitutionally robust and right, its Members will not sit there and happily accept that they have no power at all.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I say to my hon. Friend that the Australian Senate is elected on a different, more proportionate electoral system, and it does not have that problem.

[Conor Burns]

And I say in response to my hon. Friend that it is at the core of Conservative beliefs that if something is working, one does not mess around with it. The other place is working, as is shown by the fact that we in this place accept more than 80% of the amendments that it sends back to us. It is playing its proper role as a revising Chamber.

There is one point of consensus on all sides. We want to see an effective second Chamber that works. I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister saying that he is open to ideas for reform and improvement, and as the Joint Committee embarks on its important work, I hope that it will consider ideas for improving the second Chamber from those of us who want to improve the status quo. We all want it to work in the interests of our constituents, but I am not convinced that the proposals that the Government have on the table at this point will achieve that objective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He makes the exact point that while we are devoting valuable time in this Chamber to the subject—we will devote more time to this discussion over the coming months and probably years—our constituents want us to talk about things such as employment.

[Andrew Percy]

I want to ask my hon. Friend whether anybody in his constituency had ever written to him about fixed-term Parliaments or the electoral system, and whether he voted for those Bills.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, I have received quite a lot of letters about fixed-term Parliaments. Most of them came from Liberal Democrat activists who wanted me to vote in favour, so that point is not quite right. The reality is that our constituents want us to spend our time in this Chamber producing legislation that will have an impact on the things that matter to them. They want us to talk about jobs, the economy, schools and the health service. Above all, they want the legislation that comes out of this place to be the best possible legislation with the best chance of making the kind of difference that they want.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Stevenson]

We are talking about the democratic institutions that make laws and byelaws, so I would take a different view on that point. We elect Members of this House, but for whatever reason we do not elect those who sit in the second most important part of our democratic institutions. For that reason, the House of Lords lacks true legitimacy and accountability. However great its expertise, diversity or experience, it is simply not elected. Of the 71 major Parliaments around the world, 61 have an elected or partly elected second Chamber. In fact, Canada is the only other major democracy with a fully appointed upper Chamber.

[Andrew Percy]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Conservative Government in Canada have just introduced a Bill in the Canadian Parliament to ensure that the Senate is elected for periods of nine years.

[John Stevenson]

That is an interesting point that I did not know, but it helps to support my argument. As someone who lives in a democracy, I think it is absolutely right that I should have the opportunity to stand for any elected Assembly in that country. As someone from this country, I should have the right to stand for election to the House of Lords. It is completely wrong that membership can be determined by a person’s religion. Interestingly, there have been comments about the Church of England, but as a member of the Church of Scotland I take a slightly different view.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I have given way a couple of times and I am going to continue.

The reason for having elections is not to give legitimacy but to deliver accountability. People say that we need to have greater legitimacy for the House of Lords, but if we gave it democratically elected legitimacy, it would then become a rival to this Chamber. That is one of the problems that is overlooked.

The proposals will not deliver accountability. There will be single terms of 15 years, and there is no chance of a failing lord being thrown out at the end of it. Accountability works when one can fire people who fail; if one cannot do so, it defeats the object of the exercise. We ended up with the stipulation of 15-year terms, because even the advocates of this reform recognise that as a consequence of having a democratically elected second Chamber people’s independence might be compromised, because they would have to jump to the electoral cycle and would be more in hock to the parties that sponsor them.

The proposed Chamber would have a mixed nature, with some people being appointed and 80% being elected. Who would be blamed if they failed? Would it be the fault of the ones who were elected or of the ones who were appointed? That would cause confusion where there should be clarity. It should be either all elected or all appointed.

We must also consider how the elections would work in practice. People will typically make these judgments on the same day as a general election. They will not necessarily vote for the best people to scrutinise Parliament in the House of Lords. It will be rather as it is with the European Parliament at the moment—a national opinion poll on whether the Government are doing well or badly. People will therefore not be selected on their ability to scrutinise the Government.

[Andrew Percy]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[George Eustice]

No; I have given way a couple of times and want to make some progress.

What is legitimate about electing people based not on their own performance or ability, but on the performance of the governing party or the Opposition? That is not the right way to select a Chamber that is, after all, there to revise.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) has said that the average age of Members in the other place is 69. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was also rather scathing about the advanced years of some Members in the other place and the quality of the debate. However, the House of Lords is the forum that we provide for debate for the older generation and people who have experience. [Laughter.] This is an important point, if Members will hear me out. I believe that the dynamic between the other place and this place should be akin to that between a non-executive chairman and a chief executive, or between a father and a son. It is a natural dynamic. This place makes the decisions as new Governments come in with fresh ideas that they want to implement. However, we must not fool ourselves into thinking that we are so clever that we do not need another Chamber of people who can bring to bear their experience and say, “Well, we tried that in the ’70s and the ’80s and it didn’t work.” That is the reason for having a revising Chamber.

I do not think it necessarily matters that not everybody in the other place is of a completely independent mind, such as those with a political background or former politicians. The key thing is they have independence of mind coupled with experience. Retired politicians who go to the other place are often of the view that they have been told what to do for long enough by the Whips and that they will use their experience to change legislation sensibly, which must be a good thing. If we change to an elected House, we will lose some of that. The types of people who will stand for election to the House of Lords will tend to be people like us. They will be of the same generation as us and might include people who were unsuccessful at the last general election and so decide to stand for the House of Lords instead. We will lose the natural dynamic between the two generations, which is important.

To conclude, I will say a little about the areas that could be meaningfully reformed without having an elected Chamber. First, we could make the Lords smaller. Secondly, we could limit the time that people are there, so that they serve 10 or 15 years and then retire. Thirdly, we could tighten the appointments criteria, so that there are more independent people, if that is what we want to achieve. The single most important thing that we can do is to expect people to attend and participate. All too often in the past 10 years, people have been granted a peerage in recognition of something that they have achieved in life, but not with the expectation that they will work and attend debates. If we changed that, it would be a more meaningful and important reform than having an elected upper Chamber.