Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Sorry, S4C, not Channel 4. S4C is going to be part of the BBC in the near future. I presume that subsection (b), which might be presumed at a later date to transfer to other referendums, would not be disturbed by the congruence of the two organisations, I think in 2013-14.

Subsection (b) also uses the term “broadcast”, a word that, in legislation, specifically refers to broadcasting from one to many points. That is to say, the broadcaster does not determine the precise number of people who receive a programme, network or channel, as opposed to cable, which has never before been referred to as broadcasting, because it is point-to-point. That is to say, the cable organisation knows exactly where the programme is going, because there is a direct connection between A and B, as opposed to what happens in terrestrial broadcasting, whether digital or otherwise. That is why the Communications Act 2003 has separate provisions for broadcasting and cable. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that when he says “broadcast” he does not just mean broadcasting, but includes cable and the provision of any such programme via any other means.

I ask that because subsection (c) refers explicitly to

“a programme included in any service licensed under Part 1 or 3 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 or Part 1 or 2 of the Broadcasting Act 1996”.

I do not understand why subsection (b) refers to a broadcast—as opposed to either a programme provided by the two organisations listed or one included in any service provided by them—and it contrasts with how subsection (c) has been constructed. In addition, there is an issue relating to the provision of party political broadcasts, because there will be a different level of provision of party election broadcasts in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, as a result of the elections being held there, from that provided in England during the run-up to the referendum and the short campaign for those elections. I suppose that any of the political parties in those areas could decide that it wanted to major on the alternative vote provisions and the referendum in its party election broadcast, and therefore might be considered to be in conflict with the provisions under the terms of the 2000 Act or the Broadcasting Act 1990.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

A party might indeed consider doing that, but would the hon. Gentleman concede that the political reality of the situation is that most parties and combatants in the Scottish and Welsh elections will have better things to do than consider the AV referendum? That further underlines the folly of holding the referendum on the same day as those elections, thereby not giving the issue its proper space in those territories.

[Chris Bryant]

Indeed. Many of the provisions that we will talk about in the main debate this afternoon relate to the combining of polls, but this is the only point in the debate on the Bill when there can be any discussion about party election broadcasts, because this is the only point in the Bill that they are referred to. All the other elements—how many registers of electors there should be, what colour the ballot papers should be, how many polling cards there should be and so on—are referred to in the new schedules that we will come to a little later, but not broadcasting, which is a reserved responsibility.

The Broadcasting Act 1990 makes it clear that

“any regional Channel 3 licence or licence to provide Channel 4 or 5 shall include—

(a) conditions requiring the licence holder to include party political broadcasts in the licensed service; and

(b) conditions requiring the licence holder to observe such rules with respect to party political broadcasts as the Commission may determine.”

In addition, we specified in section 127 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 that

“(1) A broadcaster shall not include in its broadcasting services any referendum campaign broadcast made on behalf of any person or body other than one designated in respect of the referendum in question under section 108.

(2) In this section, ‘referendum campaign broadcast’ means any broadcast whose purpose (or main purpose) is or may reasonably be assumed to be—

(a) to further any campaign conducted with a view to promoting or procuring a particular outcome in relation to any question asked in a referendum to which this Part applies, or

(b) otherwise to promote or procure any such outcome.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is characterising that in a sensible fashion. This is a national referendum to be held in the United Kingdom, and it is a reserved matter for the UK Government to decide upon. When this whole issue arose and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement to the House, some Members asked what consultation had taken place and he made it clear that this is a matter for the UK Government and that it was right that this House heard the announcement first, before any conversations took place with the devolved Administrations. I do not think that is disrespectful; rather, it is properly respectful of the rights of this House.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does this not highlight that when devolution was established by the then Labour Government, they were trying too hard to hold on to power and they should instead have been a bit more relaxed and allowed the devolved Assemblies or Parliaments a bit more power over the governance of their own elections? That is not rocket science.

[Mr Harper]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. In my response to the hon. Member for Rhondda, I set out what the arrangements are now for the administration of elections. One of the things that has been discussed as part of the Calman proposals is the suggestion to devolve the administration of elections to the Scottish Government. I hope that we can take that forward, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) would welcome it. I think that I have run through the issues raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. He is no longer in his place and that demonstrates that his questions have been adequately answered.

--- Later in debate ---

Paragraph 18 permits the counting officer to decide whether the same or separate ballot boxes should be used for combined polls. Where separate ballot boxes are used, they are each to be clearly marked to show which ballot papers should be put in them.

[Mr MacNeil]

On the use of separate ballot boxes, if a voter happens to put both papers in one or other of the ballot boxes, will that be cleared up at the polling station simply by transferring the relevant paper to the right pile?

[Mr Harper]

Clearly, as is common with combined polls, the verification procedure, which I shall discuss later, will make sure that verification is complete for all polls before any election results are declared, so that there will not be problems if a whole load of ballot papers are suddenly found in the wrong box. That provision is fairly consistent with what happens now in combined elections.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the Minister clarify that point? When he says “verification”, does he mean “counting”, with a declaration of the result after both polls have been counted, or does he mean that the papers will be separated to ensure that they are in the right place and that, in Scotland, votes for the Scottish Parliament will be counted and declared before people get around to counting and declaring the result of the referendum?

[Mr Harper]

I shall come to the order of counting in a while, but we have made it clear in previous debates that the election results should be counted first.

[Mr MacNeil]

And declared?

[Mr Harper]

Yes. The verification of both the referendum and election ballot papers will take place first; it will not be necessary to count the referendum papers at that point, but they will have to be verified to make sure that no election ballot papers have inadvertently been put in the wrong box. That is what happens with combined general and local elections now: local election votes do not have to be counted before general election votes can be counted and the result declared, but both sets of papers have to be verified to ensure that all the general election papers are in one place and that the result is accurate. That does not hold up the declaration of results, which, quite importantly for all the devolved Assemblies, will be wanted as soon as possible. When I come to that issue, the hon. Gentleman can jump straight in if he thinks I have not been clear.

Following our debate in Committee on 18 October, I confirm that a large-print version of the ballot papers for each of the relevant polls, including the referendum, must be displayed at all polling stations. Paragraph 20 provides that at a combined poll:

“The large version of the ballot paper displayed…must be of the same colour as the ballot papers to be used for the referendum.”

Paragraphs 27 to 34 permit the counting officer to use the same copy of the register for each poll to combine the various lists that are produced for proxy voters, the votes marked by the presiding officer, the list of voters with disabilities assisted by companions and the tendered votes list.

Paragraph 36 sets out the procedure that presiding officers must follow at the close of poll. That includes rules on the packets that need to be made up and sent to the counting officer after the poll has closed. Provision is included to ensure that certain documents relating to each poll are not combined with documents relating to any other poll. That applies to unused or spoilt ballot papers, tendered ballot papers and certificates as to employment on the day of the poll.

Paragraphs 38 to 45 set out the Government’s policy for the verification and count procedure at a combined poll. The combination amendment does not specify the timing of the count for any of the polls, to ensure that there is flexibility for votes on the ballot papers for the elections to be counted before those for the referendum. The combination rules for the verification and count process make it clear that once ballot papers have been received from polling stations, they have to be taken out of the ballot boxes and separated into piles for each poll. Before the votes on ballot papers for any poll can be counted, the counting officer or relevant returning officer must ensure that the ballot papers from a ballot box are mixed with the ballot papers for that poll from a different ballot box, and that postal ballot papers are mixed with ballot papers for that poll from a ballot box. If the counting of votes for any poll has not commenced by the time the verification process has been concluded, the ballot papers for that poll must be sealed up and retained by the counting officer in the case of referendum ballot papers, or delivered to the relevant returning officer, who will be responsible for storing the ballot papers securely until the count takes place.

Paragraph 46 provides that the verification process for all combined polls must have been completed before the declaration of any counts. Although we are aware that that may delay the declaration of a count, we believe that given the number of polls taking place the requirement is essential to ensure that all the ballot papers have been correctly accounted for, thereby ensuring the integrity of the count. Clearly, as with combined elections, having to do all the verification may mean that the result is a little delayed, but it will not mean that we have to wait for the referendum to be counted before the election count.

Paragraphs 48 and 49 set out the arrangements for ensuring that the counting officer and returning officer seal up all relevant papers in appropriate packets after the poll, and deliver them to the relevant registration officer. All documents that have been combined will be sealed together and sent by the counting officer to the relevant registration officer. Where it has been decided to use separate lists for each poll, the documents will be sealed in separate packets and delivered to the relevant registration officer by either the counting officer for the referendum or the returning officer for the relevant election.

We have specifically provided that in the event of legal proceedings arising on the referendum and/or relevant election, the court can make an order for the production of combined documents relating to the poll or polls.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Curran]

The Minister may not be aware, but I am still a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and I feel obliged to point out to him that throughout the Parliament there are concerns about the coalition Government’s decision to hold the referendum on the same date as Scottish Parliament elections. People across the political spectrum in Scotland profoundly feel that that is a great disrespect to the Scottish Parliament, and I say that with great authority.

[Mr MacNeil]

More nationalism, more nationalism.

[Margaret Curran]

This is not a nationalist point, and I hope that the coalition does not dismiss the feelings to which I have referred as the marginal voice of nationalism in Scotland. The view is widespread throughout Scotland, and mainstream parties such as mine also hold it. However, I am concerned that in response to the question from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), the Minister seemed to imply that, because the Scottish Parliament does not have responsibility for the elections at the moment, it is not a key stakeholder in the ongoing discussions—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will come to him when I have completed this point.

We recognise that there is a different qualitative issue raised by the combination of the general election and these elections. As I have said in previous debates, we are thinking about how that issue may be dealt with, and we will come back to the House and the devolved Administrations in due course.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

rose—

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

Hang on: let me deal with one intervention at a time.

My understanding—I am sure that this is the case—is that this issue has been raised at the JMC; I am sure that I will be corrected if it has not. Moreover, one would be having these conversations not only with the Administrations but with the Parliaments and Assemblies themselves. I know that some of those conversations have taken place. For example, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has had a communication from the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly making it clear that its Members did not want the date of the Assembly election changed.

[Mr Harper]

No, I was not suggesting that at all; I was simply making the point that they have not done so. However, let me save them time and trouble by saying that if they do, it will not make us change our minds, so they can focus on the important issues that voters will be concerned about.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the Minister find it a bit rich—I know I do—that Labour Members, particularly those who are still Members of the Scottish Parliament, argue day in, day out against more powers for the Scottish Parliament, yet suddenly, when party politics are involved, try to score points by saying that they want more powers for the Scottish Parliament? They should stick to their principles and not play party politics with the issue when they are here. We should give power to the Scottish Parliament similar to that for the Isle of Man, at the very least.

[Mr Harper]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will not add to his point, but I am now slightly envious that I am not a Member of the Scottish Parliament too, and so cannot indulge in such debates on a daily basis. I now know what I am missing out on by not participating in Scottish politics.

In answer to the hon. Member for Rhondda, I can confirm that these issues have been discussed at the JMC. If he does not believe that they have, I will happily write to him and give him the details.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I wish to speak in support of new clause 7, which was so ably introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), and to comment on the related issues of the number of MPs and the number of Ministers with which it deals. Paragraph 24 of the coalition programme for government, the contents of which we are, in part, debating today, starts with the words:

“The Government believes that our political system is broken. We urgently need fundamental political reform”.

I totally dissociate myself from that shameful statement. If it were true, all the political leaders of recent years ought to resign their seats because they would be responsible. Our “political system is broken” it says. That was the slogan of Oswald Mosley and the British fascists when I was a boy. Mosley spent the war in prison and the political system he despised and described as broken triumphed at home and abroad. Our political system is not broken. We have had some nincompoop Front Benchers, some expense-fiddling Back Benchers and even some who managed to qualify under both categories, but our political system is basically sound and, in parliamentary terms, not very different from what it was in 1945, 1918 and 1815.

It is the duty of an incoming Government in a democratic country to work within the rules and conventions of its political system, not to change those rules and conventions to fit their temporary party political convenience—that is a privilege usually reserved for banana republics. That is why I am opposed to all the so-called constitutional changes proposed in the coalition programme. The Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday—appropriately on “Desert Island Discs”—that when he met the leader of the Conservative party after the election, they agreed together that in the general election both their parties had lost. We should try to reverse that decision of the electorate not by changing the rules of the game but by raising the standard of government. We do not have too many MPs: we have too many Ministers and too many placemen, to use Sir Robert Walpole’s phrase to describe the proliferation of what Disraeli later described as the Tadpoles and Tapers of politics, who are now being proliferated to an astonishing degree.

In 1900, when we were the richest and most powerful nation in the world, there were nine Parliamentary Private Secretaries. By 2000, the number had gone up to 47 and it is rising daily.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman said that in 1900 the UK was the richest nation in the world. Today, in The Scotsman, I read that among the top 15 most prosperous nations, the UK finds itself in the unlucky 13th place, behind Norway at No. 1 and noticeably behind Ireland and Iceland, respectively at 11th and 12th. That is just a point of information.

[Sir Peter Tapsell]

It is very interesting—even if incomprehensible to me. I make the point in passing that Scotland has gained even more than Britain from the combination of our two countries since the Act of Union.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the Irish Republic would be better off as part of the UK, or has the Irish Republic prospered and done far better by leaving the UK?

[Sir Peter Tapsell]

Curiously enough, I shall come to the question of the Irish Republic a little later in my remarks, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.

Although by 2000 the total number of MPs involved in Government had already gone up from 42 in 1900 to 129, the number of Cabinet Ministers has not greatly increased. It is the number of loyal, but little known and easily sackable bag carriers that has ballooned. At the election, we in the Conservative party were pledged to make Government more answerable to Parliament. How is that to be achieved by maintaining the number of Ministers and increasing the number of PPSs, yet at the same time reducing the number of MPs? At this rate, genuine Government Back Benchers will become a threatened species. There will be no more Pitts attacking Walpole, no more Disraelis attacking Peel and no young Macmillans attacking Chamberlain, yet that is part of the lifeblood of our parliamentary story.

On what grounds is it claimed, historically, statistically or in terms of accommodation, that we have too many MPs? Germany, Australia and the United States, with their federal structures, have far more elected representatives, at various levels of their constitution, than we have. Over the past two centuries, our population has increased from about 16 million in 1800 to about 62 million today. We now have 650 MPs. The proposal is to reduce the number to 600. In 1801, shortly before Trafalgar, there were 658 MPs. In 1885, in the heyday of Liberalism, there were 670 MPs. In the 1918 general election, 707 MPs were elected to the House, before the southern Irish were hived off in 1922—the year in which the Back Benchers of the Tory party reasserted themselves and got rid of Lloyd George.

Universal suffrage was not fully achieved until 1929, but in the two previous centuries the voteless masses were never out of the minds of wise MPs and Ministers. In 1801, the number of people, as distinct from voters, in each constituency averaged 24,000—although it varied a good deal from constituency to constituency. Today, the number is 95,000 and the majority are electors. If we reduce the number of MPs to 600, as is proposed, that average population figure will become 103,000, quadrupled from the 25,000 of 1800 when they had more MPs than we have today. Also, the demands of a constituency on its Member of Parliament have enormously increased in recent years. In my first Parliament, I shared one secretary with two other young and active MPs; now I have three secretaries working for me alone.

Coalition Ministers, in their programme document, claim to hold our political system in contempt, but the strange fact is that the part of the system that undoubtedly works best is that in which the Government are least involved. The best aspect of modern politics is the close personal relationship between MPs and their constituents. Its closeness and extent is unique. Even in Switzerland, the cantonal MP is not seen as being so close and available as most MPs of all parties are seen to be by their constituents in Britain.

While the media and many members of the public often express contempt for our leading political figures—but not, of course, for the Leader of the House—at grass-roots level, whatever the politics of their MP, people are more likely to say, “My own MP does a good job in the constituency, and when I am in trouble, I know that he will do his best to help me.” That is the strongest of all the present bulwarks of our democratic parliamentary system.

At a time of economic failure, disgruntled police, fearful public servants, a neglected army and hostile trade unions, which in many countries would be regarded as a dangerous quintet, why tamper with that bulwark? When there are so many more pressing issues to be solved, why set many MPs, even of the same party—or particularly of the same party—at the political throats of their neighbours, as rumours of boundary changes begin to abound? My local press has already speculatively redrawn the six Lincolnshire constituencies and abolished one of them, to general dismay and the discouragement of activists of all parties. Why muddy the political waters with the inevitable charges of gerrymandering, which are certain to be thrown about?

Very wisely, in the United States, changes to the actual constitution occur only very rarely, after years of discussion, and they require a two-thirds majority of both Houses of Congress and the approval of the Supreme Court. In this debate on new clause 7, I have spoken about only two aspects of the so-called constitutional reforms, but in my view, the wide range of constitutional and electoral changes proposed by the coalition Government, taken as a whole, and introduced so early in the life of a Parliament full of new Members, constitute an attempt at a peaceful, political coup d’état, with the sole object of securing the position of Ministers. They have no mandate for the Bill from the country. I therefore urge this Committee to accept new clause 7, and urge the House in due course to reject the whole Bill on Third Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her splendid speech. I had not realised that she was going to end so swiftly.

We have had excellent contributions. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said that he lacked ambition. That is clear, I suppose. That has been underlined with three lines from the Whips, but I praise the motion that he tabled. It puts into a new clause the question that I asked the Deputy Prime Minister some few months ago: if the Government plan to cut the number of seats in the House of Commons and do not plan to cut the number of Ministers, surely that will increase the influence of the Government—the Executive—over Parliament. I wholeheartedly support the argument that the hon. Member for Broxbourne made this evening.

[Mr MacNeil]

May I charitably suggest that although the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) might lack personal ambition, he certainly does not lack ambition for the House and its wider membership, which will have been noted on both sides of the House?

[Chris Bryant]

Of course; I did not mean to be ungenerous to the hon. Member for Broxbourne, as I think he well knows. I was praising his ambition, which need not be for the greasy pole—it might be for other things in life.

The right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell)—