Coronavirus

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Mark Harper

Thursday 25th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I suppose I have an opportunity to reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who has just spoken. I have a rather different take.

Many people seem to be seized of the idea that the vaccination programme has already freed us and that we are entitled to take back freedoms now. I want to challenge that. The threat of a third wave exists—in fact, there will be a third wave; it is just a question of how large it is going to be. The only thing that will constrain it is the proportion of the population who are resistant.

There is 85% take-up in half the population at the moment and the vaccines are on average 85% effective: that means that only 72% of half the population has immunity. The Secretary of State referred to Public Health England advice—based on very fresh data, I hasten to add—that bears out the most recent Imperial College modelling, which shows that even if all the restrictions are not lifted until July there is still a danger of a third wave. If the restrictions were lifted at the end of April, say, there would be a dramatic rise in the number of hospitalisations.

[Mr Harper]

I read with great care my hon. Friend’s article on ConservativeHome this morning. He refers to the modelling that Imperial and Warwick did. I went through that in some detail, but the problem is that the assumptions they made—I went through every single one—are all overly pessimistic compared with the actuality. That is why I asked the Secretary of State to redo that modelling, because if he did so, I think he would come to a much more optimistic conclusion than my hon. Friend has reached.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am perfectly prepared to accept that it is a worst-case scenario, but we are dealing with projections that are based on a great deal of speculation, and they do not take account of the possibility of new variants. I rather share the concern expressed by some Members in the debate that we need restrictions on people coming into this country, particularly from the continent, and that there should be more testing of people coming here. I am sure that the Government will want to implement those measures if they can. It is rather easier to call for them to implement them than to do so without causing a great deal of disruption.

I want to briefly touch on the continuation of our vaccination programme. One of the risks that we need to factor in is that the rate of vaccination will slow, and particularly the rate of first doses, because the vaccination programme now has to cope with the large quantity of second doses. The restrictions on vaccine supply mean that the number of first doses will perhaps reduce to as little as 50,000 a week in April. That does not rule out that we should adopt a generous attitude towards our European friends, however much they may be casting around for blame and trying to salvage their reputation from the failure of their own vaccination programmes. We can draw comfort from the fact that they are resorting to possible bans and blockades because they have no contractual obligations to enforce upon AstraZeneca—it is a misunderstanding of the difference between contracts that give rights over stock that exists and contracts that give rights over the flow of production, which is creating stock that does not yet exist.

The fact is that we are at the front of the queue, but I think that the United Kingdom should seek to be generous and to avoid this vaccine nationalism, even if it means giving up some of the flow of our vaccine, although it is understood that there are actually some large quantities of vaccine in the European Union that are not being used. The fact that they have trashed the reputation of the AstraZeneca vaccine is most unfortunate, and while understandable in psychological terms, it is unforgivable in public health terms.

Finally, on the issue of lifting covid restrictions in Parliament, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, who cobbled together a majority in the Procedure Committee to get what he wanted in the Committee’s report. But I suggest that, in the end, it is a matter for the whole House what the House’s procedures are. There are things to learn, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, that will make the House more equal, fairer to people who are sick and fairer to people who have caring responsibilities and perhaps take the pressure off the shortage of time we have because we do not want too many late nights. Some of our debates have got too short, and speeches have got too short, and if those who had to be away could have proxy votes, we could have longer debates, better debates and better scrutiny of legislation, as well as a House that is more attractive for women to stay in and take part in.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Mark Harper

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I see the Chairman of the Committee nodding, so I have got that right. That provision gives both the wider House and members of the public confidence that the information put before the House is not just the views of MPs; it is also the views of lay members of the Committee. That brings a useful check on our views about what is and is not appropriate behaviour.

[Mr Jenkin]

My right hon. Friend is right to say that having the lay members present when decisions are made gives the Committee on Standards more authority, but there is something odd about the Committee adjudicating on rules and evidence—that should be done by a lawyer. These decisions would have much more authority if they were handed to the Committee by someone with the right juridical experience and standing, and the Committee was told, “This is the judgment. If you overturn this, you are overturning a respectable legal opinion. On your own head be it.”

[Mr Harper]

I listen carefully to what my hon. Friend says and put a fair bit of weight on it, given that he chairs the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, but I do not entirely agree with that. I have taken the trouble over the years to read the reports of the Committee on Standards, particularly the serious ones, and the reports of the parliamentary commissioner. The thing that has always struck me—I do not know whether other Members have thought this—is the thoroughness with which the parliamentary commissioner has looked into serious allegations. I have often thought to myself, “If you were ever tempted not to uphold the very high standards of behaviour, you really would not want to be subject to that level of scrutiny, because it is fairly exacting.”

I do not know whether Members have looked at these reports, but I can tell them that the parliamentary commissioner goes into things in considerable detail. The reports that are put before the Committee on Standards by the parliamentary commissioner are very thorough and detailed. There is a perception outside the House about the view that MPs on that Committee take, but when I have read its reports I have always felt they have been very balanced, tough and fair. When one reads them, one finds that it is not clear that there is any bias coming into them from the party views of the MPs. I have always thought that system is a pretty good one. As I have said, the only gap in it was rectified by the addition of lay members, who bring that useful outside perspective and check. But I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said and I am sure it will be reflected upon by the House more widely.

[Mr Jenkin]

We have had one case in which the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards reached one view, but when the same issue was then challenged in the courts a judge took a much harsher view. That completely undermines the authority of the system we have, and we need a much more legalistic approach to the adjudication of rules and evidence, whatever punishments the Committee may have decided to hand out.

[Mr Harper]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. I do not entirely agree with him, but I do not wish to deviate from this debate into a wider discussion of standards.

My final point is about training and culture. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire made a sensible point about MPs’ backgrounds, but I wish to pick up on his slightly prejudicial comment that assumed that everybody on the Government Benches has a privileged background, which is entirely not true. I will not bore him with the fact that I was the first person in my family to go to university, my father was a labourer and we had certainly not had any Members of Parliament in the family before—I just want to challenge the hon. Gentleman’s prejudices—but he made a sensible point: MPs have a very varied set of backgrounds. Some have run their own businesses and employed significant numbers of people. Some, like me, have worked in a business for others, and I have experience of managing teams. Others will come to the House having never managed anybody before in their lives.

Members obviously come to the House at a variety of ages and with a variety of other experiences. We are all then plunged into employing members of staff. As the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), said, Members come to the House with the very best of intentions but often do not have the required skills. We therefore need to improve the training on how to employ and manage people and on the expectations that we set. We also need to provide HR support not only proactively, so that Members are better trained and supported, but so that we have somebody to ask questions if there are challenging issues that we are not comfortable dealing with. That would be valuable.

I welcome the recommendation that training should be part of the induction process for new Members. I do not think there is a massive gap between the position of the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex. I think that everybody should go through the training, but the challenge is that we can mandate that everyone goes to a training course and physically turns up at the room, but we cannot mandate that they will listen attentively and change their behaviour after doing so. It seems to me that the people who are least likely to go to the training are probably those most in need of it.

As the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire said, the challenge is to persuade people that they should go on the training course, listen and change their behaviour. The proposals to which the hon. Lady referred on publicising whether people had been on the training course, so that there is peer pressure and people feel they should go and so that the staff they might wish to hire put pressure on them, are a good idea. Nevertheless, for new MPs, it should be part of the standard set of training that every Member undertakes, so that we set the expectations correctly.

That leads me to the second part of my final point, which is about the culture of this place. I have listened to the debates we have had on this issue over the past few months and thought about my own working career. I was perhaps fortunate to work for two businesses that took management and how they treated their people very seriously. I went on training courses on how to manage people and set expectations and on what was expected. Staff members were empowered to speak up, and it was recognised that speaking up on a whole range of issues—whether how we ran the business or how people behaved—was the right thing to do. That set the right sort of culture, which is not always the case.

I have thought through some of the comments that have been made over the past few months. Examples of behaviour have been given and people have said things like, “That sort of behaviour was acceptable a few years ago, but things seem to have changed.” I thought back to when I started my working after leaving university, which is tragically a lot longer ago than I care to remember, in 1991. I thought through some of the specific examples we have read about, and whether they involved Members of this House or people outside it, we heard people say, “This sort of behaviour used to be acceptable.”

I was thinking back to when I started work 27 years ago, and I concluded that, actually, those sorts of things were not acceptable. The difference between then and more recently is that people used to get away with behaving like that. What has changed is not that certain behaviours are no longer acceptable—actually they never were acceptable—but that people cannot get away with them now, and that is right and an improvement. What we are trying to deliver with the training and the change of culture is that everybody accepts not only that those sorts of behaviour are not acceptable, but that no one will let people get away with them.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Mark Harper

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 1st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I am conscious that I have dealt with only the first argument that the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton set out, and I want to make some progress before I take any more interventions.

The hon. Gentleman’s second point, which related to MEPs, was about workload. I have dealt with costs, but I want to take the workload issue head on, because there is a flipside relating to devolution, so he should be careful about going down this road. When we brought forward the initial proposals in the 2011 Act, we had to think through how the country was to be represented. At the moment, certain parts of the United Kingdom are perhaps over-represented in this House relative to their population. Wales, for example, has considerably more Members of Parliament than it would be entitled to on the basis of its population, which is why both sets of proposals would reduce the number of Members of Parliament to which Wales was entitled.

Representations were made to me that the parts of the UK with devolved government—those covered by the Scottish Parliament, and the Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland—should have less representation in this House because the casework aspect of our job is shared with the representatives in those bodies. In Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, where health is a devolved matter, one could argue that cases about the health service—when I take up such cases as an English Member of Parliament, I raise them with the Secretary of State for Health, who is responsible for the health service in England—would be properly dealt with in the devolved Assemblies. I rejected that argument at the time, because I felt that we needed to ensure that all voters who elect people to this House were treated evenly, but if we follow the hon. Gentleman’s argument that the abolition of MEPs means that more work will fall on us, meaning that there should be more of us, the logic is that those parts of the United Kingdom with devolved government should have less representation in this House, because their MPs’ workload will be shared with Members of the devolved legislatures. The hon. Gentleman should be cautious before pursuing that line of argument, because it might lead him somewhere he would not want to go.

Let me now deal with the frequency of reviews. The hon. Gentleman’s Bill would move from us having a boundary review every Parliament, which was what we suggested, to having one every 10 years. I had to smile to myself when he talked about the tradition of having boundary reviews about every 10 years, because we have not had a full boundary review for almost 20 years. If we do not manage to get a boundary review before the next general election, the registers on which the next election will be fought will be 22 years old, meaning that some people who will be voting at the next general election would not even have been born when the registers were compiled.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend inadvertently says that the registers would be 22 years old, but he meant to say that the boundaries will be based on registers that are 22 years old. The registers will actually be completely up to date.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as one would expect, given that he is the distinguished Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which covers exactly this area of policy. I am grateful to him. The registers are absolutely up to date. The boundaries, however, are based on registers from 2000, meaning that we have not had a boundary review for some considerable time. That is important, because the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton was talking about the change that comes along with such reviews.

I accept that a boundary review that reduces the number of MPs from 650 to 600 and takes place 20 years after the last one will inevitably involve a lot of change to parliamentary boundaries. The reason we thought it sensible to have a boundary review every Parliament is that there is a choice once we have had that big change: either we have relatively frequent but smaller changes to parliamentary boundaries, or we have less frequent but more significant changes. My view, and the view that the then coalition Government and the House took when the 2011 Act was passed, was that it was better to have more frequent smaller changes. On balance, having reflected on that before today and while listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, I think that that is right. If we have boundary reviews only once every 10 years, they will just be bigger and more disruptive, so smaller, less disruptive reviews are probably to be welcomed.

Civil Service Reform

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Mark Harper

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

Touché, as they say. I am most grateful for that information. I am sure it would have been in the Government’s evidence to our Committee.

Before I continue, I draw the House’s attention to the names on motion 36 under “Remaining orders and notices” in today’s Order Book. Motion 36 would set a more limited remit than we originally proposed and determine the Commons membership of the commission on the civil service. The other place indicated last week that it would reciprocate and I can inform the House that the former Lord Justice General of Scotland and the former Deputy President of the Supreme Court, Lord Hope of Craighead, has indicated that he would chair this commission if invited to do so. The names of former Secretaries of State, former Ministers and the clear majority of chairs of Select Committees on our motion, along with the support of the other place, represent a real and powerful cross-party consensus that would give civil service reform the impetus and urgency it needs.

As we consider accountability, trust and leadership at the top of Government, it is important to understand what extraordinary demands we place on Ministers and senior officials. Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the performance of their Departments, like directors to their shareholders, but unlike in almost any other walk of life they have to rely on people they do not appoint and cannot easily remove. In addition, today’s Ministers feel accountable for a system that has become somewhat unaccountable.

PASC has watched the Government’s policy on the civil service evolve. To start with there was much talk about change in Government but no plan for how change would be led and implemented. In our 2011 report “Change in Government: the agenda for leadership”, PASC recommended that the Government should formulate a comprehensive change programme articulating what the civil service is for. The civil service reform plan of 2012 indicates that the experience of Ministers in Government has had an impact on their thinking about the civil service, but it does not meet our recommendation.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

On the urgency of the task, I note that the date for this commission to report is my birthday, which will be a lovely birthday present, and I also note the juxtaposition of that date with the timing of when this House will be dissolved ahead of a general election. Does having this commission reporting just before the House is dissolved meet my hon. Friend’s desire urgently to address this whole issue?

[Mr Jenkin]

The alternative is that we put it off. Perhaps the commission could finish more quickly, but these are very large and difficult subjects to deal with. The proposal one hears in the corridors of Westminster is that people want to put this off until after the general election. I suggest we cannot wait and I will come on to that point.

The civil service reform plan was published two years later and most Ministers past and present today still agree that getting things done takes far too long and what is often presented to Ministers or implemented is too late or not of sufficient quality. The Minister for the Cabinet Office himself told us there had even been examples of “deliberate obstruction” of ministerial decisions by officials. My right hon. Friend has also described civil servants as:

“Fabulous...Able, bright, energetic, ambitious to change the world.”

I am sure he would agree that no one joins the civil service to block Ministers or Government policy. People join it with the best of intentions and motivations, to serve the country, so why would Ministers feel that those same civil servants are blocking or frustrating their decisions, or not giving truth to power? Why would officials feel that that was the right or only way to act?

We do not need to rehearse examples of recent Whitehall failures, but we do need to ask why they occur and how Whitehall can learn from them. What are the common factors? We all agree that there is too much churn at the top in Whitehall, leading to discontinuity and loss of experience. How did it get like that? Problems such as a lack of key skills and competences are far from new, so we must also ask why, after repeated efforts to reform Whitehall in the conventional way over the past few decades, the same problems persist. The hardest thing to reform in any organisation is people’s attitudes and behaviour, yet there is little reference to attitudes or behaviour in the civil service reform plan, even though they should be the primary consideration.

There has been much attempted reform over the years, focusing on organisation and skills, but those leading change need to understand why people behave as they do. Unless they can change that, the job titles might change, but few will change how they work. Indeed, much of Whitehall is fatigued by reform. Many feel they have done all they can to embrace change but have become cynical and learned how to keep their heads down until the latest initiatives pass by. I think that Ministers refer to that as the “bias to inertia”—a prevalent attitude and a common behaviour that together militate against risk taking and undermine accountability.

When we speak of accountability, it is not simply a question of forcing obedience to ministerial orders so that instructions are carried out more directly, or finding who to blame when things go wrong. Accountability is much more about trust: not just about trusting people to take responsibility for carrying out their tasks and using their judgment, but about those people in turn trusting that the problems they face will be taken seriously, now and in the future, by those to whom they are accountable. Accountability and trust depend on shared understanding—it is a two-way street. Within that framework, people become willing to take responsibility and to be held to account. And when things get difficult and mistakes are made, as always happens, openness and trust become even more essential if there is to be learning and improvement.

This is the only way to improve accountability to Parliament and to citizens, and to avoid repeating mistakes. We need to analyse what accountability feels like in Whitehall today, given today’s intense pressures of the 24/7 media, freedom of information and more active Select Committees, and then to imagine what it should feel like. What, if any, change can be achieved unless we identify what attitudes and behaviour destroy trust? We need to identify those attitudes and develop a plan to change them. We do not have time to wait for attitudes to change. Far too many good people have got fed up with waiting, and they just leave. Also, far too much money is being wasted. As the Institute for Government pointed out this week, the spending challenge in the next Parliament will be much harder than in this one.

Another point on which all four signatories to today’s motion agree is that these challenges cannot be fixed by Whitehall from within. That is not to disparage the present Whitehall leadership. No organisation facing this kind of challenge can change without external analysis that is both independent and, in this case, democratically accountable. The lack of such analysis is the reason other reforms have failed. A sustained change in attitudes and behaviour has to be initiated by a renewed, united and determined leadership of Ministers and officials that encourages mutual understanding and co-operation and is enthusiastic to learn from external scrutiny and analysis.

This will mean Whitehall’s leaders listening and learning to develop new skills. Ministers and officials are so pressed by the immediate economic, political and international issues that they will surely need external support and scrutiny to achieve this. Of course, some will find this difficult to accept, but what is the alternative?

The remit proposed in motion 36, endorsed by the Public Administration Committee and the Liaison Committee, concentrates on the key issues: accountability, trust and leadership. I am pleased that the proposed parliamentary commission commands widespread and respected support. Professor Lord Norton of Louth, a leading constitutional academic, told my Committee that he supports a “full-scale proper review”. The Government’s lead non-executive director, Lord Browne of Madingley, said that such a review is “long overdue”. He also said that

“the biggest single obstacle to progress in government”—

was—

“the question of organisational learning, in particular from experiences of failure.”

He made the key point that

“stories of failure... are the only powerful mechanism for learning.”

Jonathan Powell, the former chief of staff to Tony Blair, told us that without a commission

“we will lose opportunities to be better governed and to get more stuff done”.

We understand why Ministers fear that it could be a distraction from implementing current policies and reform programmes, but without this wider review no civil service reform will be sustained.

Some fear that this review will become too vast a project, but this is not another Fulton committee. Not only was Fulton allowed to take far too long, but the committee was not based in Parliament and so it became divorced from the reality of government, lacked parliamentary authority and had a flawed remit. In a brilliant “Yes Minister” act of sabotage, its remit denied Fulton the right to consider any aspect of the relationship between Ministers and officials. There is no vote on the commission today, but I hope that colleagues on both sides will endorse the view that the proposed parliamentary commission is not just a good idea, but Parliament’s duty. I hope they will join all those already pressing for this to be brought to a vote in the Lobby as soon as possible.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Mark Harper

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I am not going to give way.

The key arguments against the threshold remain as compelling as ever. I have addressed some of the points made by their lordships during their debate today. Although they are entitled to ask us to consider the matter again, I do not believe that the points they raised change the balance of argument.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend not recognise that there is a difference between an ordinary election and constitutional change? A common feature of many constitutions is having thresholds for constitutional change. Just because we have an unwritten constitution, that does not mean that we are absolved of any responsibility to show that there is a reasonable threshold for constitutional change. If there were only a 10% turnout in London, where there are no forthcoming local elections, would that really constitute a valid result?

[Mr Harper]

I have two points to make. First, on my hon. Friend’s last point, we are talking about a national referendum and the important thing is to get people to vote across the whole of the United Kingdom. Secondly, we do not have a tradition in this country of thresholds for referendums either. Ten referendums have been held and only in the devolution referendum in the 1970s was a threshold inserted—the rest of the referendums had no such provision. He is being too pessimistic, because people will engage with this question. However, it would be wrong to thwart a clear decision—a yes vote—on the basis of the sort of mathematical formula that I have just set out. It could have quite perverse results and give an incentive for people to stay at home.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Mark Harper

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

Let me make a little more progress. I am conscious that other Members want to contribute and I have been generous in giving way.

As drafted, the Bill that left this House offered simplicity and, above all, certainty—the certainty that every vote would count and not be distorted by an artificial barrier. When people go to the polls on 5 May, we should listen to what they have to say, whatever their view. As well as the issues of principle that I have outlined, there are also some technical and practical deficiencies. Before I go on to them, I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin).

[Mr Jenkin]

I echo the point made by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) that the amendment only requires the House of Commons to think about a poor turnout and how to respond to the result under such circumstances rather than automatically triggering a small yes vote with a low turnout and a new voting system. Does the Minister not recognise the irony of his position? Here we are looking at a referendum that might introduce a new voting system under which a Member elected to this House will be required to get 50% of the votes cast, yet we cannot even put in a threshold to require a 40% turnout to give credibility to the result of a referendum. What serious constitution around the world does not have some form of threshold and why should we not introduce one in this case?

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Mark Harper

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

As one of the few Members of the House who has actually sailed through the straits of Messina in a sailing boat and witnessed the whirlpool, and the rock from which the many heads of Scylla seized the sailors—

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

And survived.

[Mr Jenkin]

I survived, but I have to say that it is a very disappointing whirlpool, and that is no reflection on either my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) or my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg)—whichever was representing the whirlpool or the many-headed monster. However, if this is an opportunity to put some instability in the Bill, I will certainly support new clause 5 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. I have my name on it in any case.

I would echo the sentiment that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) expressed in an interesting speech in response to new clause 3. The question of constitutional Bills is an interesting innovation introduced by Lord Justice Laws, but I would tell my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset that Lord Justice Laws was merely including in his judgments something that had been widely understood by constitutional theorists for some time, although it had never been legally expressed in such terms. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiment and, indeed, with that of the hon. Member for Rhondda that Parliament should determine which of these laws is constitutional and overrides subsequent Acts of Parliament. Clearly, the European Communities Act 1972 was expressly intended to do that, as has been recognised by the courts, and the 1689 Bill of Rights does that, but Lord Phillips concluded in a recent case that the doctrine of implied repeal applies to the 1689 Act.

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Mark Harper

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful for that intervention. I shall now try to make some progress, as I want to leave sufficient time for other hon. Members who wish to get in.

I said that the Prime Minister would be listening closely to this debate. In July, during Prime Minister’s questions, he said that:

“what is necessary is a properly transparent system, a system with proper rules and limits which the public would have confidence in, but what we do not need is an overly bureaucratic and very costly system. I think all those in the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority need to get a grip of what they are doing, and get a grip of it very fast.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 946.]

That is what all Members have said today. They want IPSA’s system to be transparent, straightforward, not bureaucratic and not costly. IPSA should get on with that.

[Mr Jenkin]

Does the Minister agree that, as with the House of Commons, IPSA is unlikely to survive a freedom of information request for evidence of payment to be produced? How can it justify withholding evidence of payment—all the invoices—on grounds of cost? That is part of the cost of the system, and it is going to have to bear it.

[Mr Harper]

That may well be the case, and I think that IPSA has admitted in public that if people apply for receipts through freedom of information requests, it may well have to do that. We will have to see how it gets on. That is the decision that it has made, which the shadow Leader of the House said is a balance between transparency and cost. It may find that the rules of freedom of information affect it as they affected the House.

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) was right to point out, as did other Members, what happened in the past and the fact that the House made the decision to have an independent system. That is important, as well as the transparency issue. I listened very carefully, but I do not think that anyone during the debate was urging that we go back on that; in fact, Members made good points about ensuring that we retain both transparency and independence.

Hon. Members gave examples of how they thought the system should move and a number spoke in favour of a flat-rate payment, including my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. However, a number of Members, including the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale), pointed out that a flat-rate system, which does not take into account the variance in costs across the country, may not be a perfect one and that there needs to be some flexibility. They all suggested ways in which that flexibility may be achieved.

We have heard from several Members about their various experiences. IPSA itself has recognised that in the first few months of running the system it made mistakes; it has been very transparent about that. We know that it made mistakes and that it needs to improve the system. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw and the shadow Leader of the House referred to improvements that have been made in the system. IPSA now makes some direct payments to landlords for constituency office rental, it now pays against invoices, and the travelcard can now be used to pay other bills. Most importantly, it implemented advances to Members to deal with the genuine problem that very many Members do not have significant amounts of money and are not in a position to meet these costs out of their own pocket and then claim money back—costs which, as many Members have said, one would not expect any other person in business, in a position such as ours, to have to pay out of their own pocket, and would reasonably be thought of as proper business expenses.

Having said that, what I have heard does not suggest that the legislation necessarily needs to be reviewed. Under the legislation introduced by this House, the expenses system and the way that it operates is a matter for IPSA. No change in legislation is required to be able to deal with the issues that have been raised in the House. Indeed, in the letter that IPSA recently circulated to Members, it said that it will conduct its annual review of the scheme in the new year and will look at the problems that have been experienced by MPs. It specifically refers to the impact of the scheme on family life, which was raised by Members on both sides of the House, and the impact on Members living in the outer reaches of the London area—indeed, in places that most people in this House probably would not consider were in the London area. IPSA has also said that it will balance its requirements for assurance against the administrative burdens on itself and on Members. That is welcome and shows that it is listening.

Under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, IPSA is required to consult the Leader of the House as one of its statutory consultees, and the Government are considering how we can use that opportunity to submit evidence to IPSA. As Members will know, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is very familiar with the issues raised with him by many MPs, either privately or on the Floor of the House at business questions.

The Government strongly support the principles of independence and transparency for IPSA, as does the shadow Leader of the House. The review that IPSA is about to undertake is its opportunity to deliver a system that remains transparent, which is probably the best way of determining that Members behave properly, but is also more efficient and less bureaucratic. I am sure that I speak for Members on both sides of the House in urging IPSA to take that opportunity and deliver a system that improves on what we have today.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Mark Harper

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

Absolutely. I can certainly say on behalf of this Government that this Government and this Prime Minister would never wish to put Her Majesty the Queen in such a position. Clearly, I cannot speak for Governments of the future, however.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I think it would help the Committee if the Minister could cite an academic paper, some judicial text or something else that bears out this notion that Her Majesty the Queen would interfere in politics in the way he is suggesting she would. Can he quote anything?

[Mr Harper]

The position is that Her Majesty the Queen appoints Prime Ministers and the ultimate constitutional long-stop is that if a Prime Minister behaves in a way that is outwith the constitutional position, the monarch can dismiss the Prime Minister—but that is the long-stop constitutional safeguard in our system.

[Mr Jenkin]

Her Majesty would have to take advice on such occasions. From whom would she take advice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I shall deal with the specific amendments shortly, when I set out why the Government think that they are unnecessary and that their drafting makes them flawed. If the hon. Gentleman does not think I have adequately dealt with his point, he will be able to intervene on me and I will happily take such an intervention. We have debated the fact that there is also a purpose in the Bill’s not specifying the exact words in legislation, because such an approach gives the House some necessary flexibility. I will return to that in a moment.

Let us consider the amendments in order. Amendment 5 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who is not able to be here today because he is away on other parliamentary business. He explained that his amendment would remove the 14-day period before an early election was called in the event of the Speaker certifying that the House had passed a vote of no confidence. It is right to say that there would be circumstances in which it would be appropriate to move to an early election when the House determined that we should do so, and the Bill provides for that in clause 2(1). But it is perfectly possible that there may be circumstances within a fixed term in which a legitimate Government could be formed from the composition of the House as it then stood, so it would not be appropriate to insist on an election. Members will have been elected for five years, and they are able to give their approval to a Government formed from within their ranks without the need necessarily to go to the country. The House can decide to do so, because under our proposals if a vote of confidence is lost and no Government can be formed within 14 days who subsequently receive a vote of confidence, a general election would take place. It seems sensible to give the House the opportunity to test whether a Government can be formed.

My hon. Friend’s amendment contained a fundamental misunderstanding about what a Prime Minister should do in the event of a Government losing the confidence of the House. Two things can happen. One possibility, under our current system, is that a Prime Minister remains in office but invites Her Majesty to dissolve the House and call a general election. Thus the Prime Minister does not resign immediately, and that is what happened when the House expressed its lack of confidence in the Government in 1979. Mr Callaghan did not resign when he lost the vote of confidence; he resigned only when he lost the subsequent election. Alternatively, the Prime Minister could resign almost straightaway after losing a vote of confidence, as happened in January 1924 when the Government’s motion for the Loyal Address after the Queen’s Speech was amended: Prime Minister Baldwin resigned and the Labour Opposition formed a Government. This Bill seeks to encapsulate that double-sided convention.

At the moment, if a general election has an unclear outcome, the Prime Minister is able to test his support in the House of Commons. If the House then signalled that it did not have confidence in that Government, that Prime Minister would go and a new one could be appointed. Amendment 5 would insist that another general election took place, and if the result of that general election was unclear, we could end up having a succession of general elections. Amendment 5 would force such elections to be held. In countries that have fixed-term Parliaments it is very common for there to be a period of Government formation after a vote of no confidence before an election is triggered. That is what happens in Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain and Sweden, so we are proposing an approach that has much precedent, which we think is sensible. We cannot ask my hon. Friend the Member for Stone to withdraw his amendment, because he is not here and thus unable to do so. However, we urge Members who are here not to insist on it being pressed to a Division.

[Mr Jenkin]

I have been in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who makes things complicated because he does not text people. He is in Budapest representing the European Scrutiny Committee, but he has suggested that it would be in the interests of the scrutiny of this Bill to press the amendment to a Division, and one or two of us will attempt to do so.

[Mr Harper]

As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone is away on parliamentary business and, as he has perhaps not reached 21st century methods of communication, my words are unlikely to reach him in a timely way. So I can only urge him not to press his amendment to a vote, but I suspect that the decision on that will be for others, not for him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jenkin]

I do not remember that being a great issue in the general election, but we are, in effect, creating one of the standard features of a written constitution, thereby tempting the courts to start interfering in the internal workings of the House.

[Mr Harper]

For the avoidance of doubt, the Government’s position is that they are not in favour of moving to what is more accurately said to be a codified constitution. Many of our constitutional principles are, of course, written down, just not in one document. It is not the Government’s position to do so. I hope that cheers my hon. Friend up.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am grateful for that assurance. The Minister, who in all these debates has shown impeccable manners and tact despite the pressure he is under, should be looking for an alternative way of delivering this part of the coalition agreement, to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) alluded.

The Speaker’s decisions will be taken under immense political pressure, as he decides what constitutes a confidence motion, what amendments might be tabled to amend a confidence motion, whether, if carried, that would invalidate the motion, whether the amendment could constitute a motion of confidence, and the consequences of amendments being carried or the motion being carried.

I quote again from the Clerk’s memorandum:

“As these would become justiciable questions, the courts could be drawn into matters of acute political controversy.”

I respect the fact that many in the House think we should have a Supreme Court like the European Court of Justice in the European Union or the Supreme Court of the United States, which is essentially a political court, but that is a very big constitutional change. We ought to have a royal commission about it, there ought to be debates on the Adjournment about it and the implications of drawing the courts into politics, if that is what we are going to do, ought to be properly explored. The way in which the Supreme Court is appointed to make it accountable for its political judgments is another important question.

We are importing continental and American-style jurisprudence into our judicial decision making. Some judges are becoming more and more adventurous about how they interpret statute and where they feel entitled to make judicial interpretations, and the Bill invites them to decide when there might be a general election under particular circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jenkin]

At the risk of repeating what I have already read out from the Speaker’s memorandum, I want to ensure that we are not speaking at cross-purposes. In paragraph 16 of the Committee’s report, the Clerk makes it very clear, in discussing clause 2(2), that

“The provisions of this subsection make the Speaker’s consideration of confidence motions and the House’s practices justiciable questions for determination by the ordinary courts.”

I do not think that the Clerk could have been clearer: it is subsection (2) that he is concerned about.

[Mr Harper]

I had a conversation with the Clerk about the certification, with the majority being specified. The Government decided to place the provisions on the early general election in statute rather than relying on Standing Orders because, as I stated in the memorandum I placed in the Library on 13 September, we cannot achieve the policy objective by relying on Standing Orders, which can be changed by a simple majority—

[Mr Jenkin]

That is not true.

[Mr Harper]

Let me just finish this point, then I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend.

Standing Orders can be changed by a simple majority. The Government’s view was that, if that was the case, the power to dissolve Parliament early would effectively be left with the Prime Minister.

[Mr Jenkin]

I beg to suggest that, if the Minister had listened carefully to what I said earlier, he would have heard me reading from a letter I had received from Mr Robert Rogers, who made it absolutely clear that it is possible to entrench a Standing Order of this House with its own super-majority. I am astonished that the Government do not understand that, and that the whole basis of this Bill seems to rest once more on the denial of advice given by the Clerks of the House.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend cited in the letter from Robert Rogers a reference to existing Standing Orders, which require a particular majority for an event to take place. I think he mentioned the requirement for 100 Members to vote for a closure motion. There is no precedent for a Standing Order, passed by a simple majority, to entrench itself and require that it cannot be changed, other than by a vote of this House on a different majority. The Government know of no precedent for that, and no Member has given an example of one. If a Standing Order provided that an early general election could be held only after a vote with the specified majority, and if that Standing Order could be changed by a simple majority vote in the House, it would be open to the governing party, at the behest of the Prime Minister, to change the Standing Order and to trigger an early election based on the whim of the Executive. That is exactly what we are trying to remove under the Bill. The Government believe that if the policy objective is to be achieved, the procedure must be specified in statute.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

If a certificate was issued by the Speaker, we would be having an election, not stopping one taking place. I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend’s concern that the courts would hold that the population were being deprived of an election would apply. The language used in the Bill was chosen for exactly the reasons I have suggested. We have used well-precedented, tried and tested language; it has stood the test of time. It is perfectly true to say that people can make groundless applications to courts on all sorts of things, but courts quickly dismiss them and prevent them from proceeding further. We are confident that these proposals are robust and will not have the effect that hon. Members suggest.

In the few minutes remaining, I wish to discuss amendment 23, because the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) suggested that he wanted to ask you, Mr Evans, whether he could press it to a Division. The amendment proposes a 24-hour time limit for the issuing of the Speaker’s certificate. I can superficially see why that might be attractive, but it sets some conditions that might introduce elements casting doubt on the validity of the certificate if it were delayed, even if it were by only a few minutes, or if it were issued close to the time limit. Thus, the amendment would enable people to question the certificate. We should therefore rely on the standard practice, whereby the Speaker’s certificate is the conclusive provision.

Given what I have said, I hope that hon. Members will not seek to press their amendments to a Division and that we are able to proceed with the debate.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am most grateful, Mr Evans, for the opportunity to reply to the debate.

I regret that I feel compelled to press this matter to a vote, but I feel that the Minister’s response has been wholly unconvincing. We are faced with adamant and clear advice from the Clerk of the House that the Minister has chosen to dismiss as irrelevant. Let me remind the Committee what the Clerk said:

“The provisions of this subsection make the Speaker’s consideration of confidence motions and the House’s practices justiciable questions for determination by the ordinary courts.”

That includes

“what constitutes a confidence motion, the selection of amendments to such Motions and the consequences of their being carried”.

He goes on to say:

“As these would become justiciable questions, the courts could be drawn into matters of acute political controversy.”

The Minister has not responded with anything substantive to defeat that advice.

Moreover, the Minister has rested his justification for the Bill on the assertion that it would not be possible to write these provisions into the Standing Orders, which would be automatically immune. Let me read from the Clerk’s memorandum again. He said that

“a Standing Order regulating the matters in the Bill could provide for its staying in effect unless repealed by a specified majority”,

meaning that it could be entrenched,

“for example by…equal to or greater than two thirds of the number of seats in the House. Not only is the principle of specifying majorities already written into the Standing Orders of the House, but in the past the House has also required a relative majority for reaching decision.”

My hon. Friend the Minister also dismissed the comments that I read from Mr Robert Rogers, the Clerk Assistant and Director General, who made it clear that we can not only write into our Standing Orders provisions requiring super-majorities, but entrench a—[Interruption.] I am rather distressed that the Minister is not even listening to what I am saying. We can entrench a Standing Order with its own super-majority so that it could be removed only by a super-majority, if that is what the House chose to do. The whole basis of the Government’s advice remains contested by the Clerks. The basis of the Bill—that this has to be done through statute—also remains contested by the Clerks.

I doubt that we will win the vote in the Committee this afternoon, but the Minister has failed to give a full response or to acknowledge any of the points that have been made. His subsection refers to a Speaker’s “certificate under this section”, which is very unspecific. At least the amendment states

“Any certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons given under this section shall be conclusive for all purposes”.

That word “any” and the reference to the Speaker make it clear that whatever the Speaker issues is uncontested, rather than leave it open to the courts to determine whether the certificate presented by the Speaker complies with the legislation. I am afraid that the Minister has not satisfied me and I do not think that he has satisfied a great many of my colleagues on the Government Benches or in the official Opposition. I want to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Mark Harper

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

If the right hon. Gentleman would allow me to make further progress in my response to what I thought were the wise words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), he would understand the terms of the advice that I would put to the Electoral Commission, which I suspect it would work out for itself, too. I suspect that it would not be tempted down that path. If the right hon. Gentleman does not think that I have answered his question, he is welcome to intervene again.

Amendment 136, moved by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), deals with the Speaker’s Committee, but I am not at all convinced that that is the right body to be involved here. The Electoral Commission has already presented its plans for public awareness and costs to the Speaker’s Committee, supplying it with information, but given that the Speaker’s Committee is made up of politicians, I am not entirely certain that it is the most appropriate body. When it was said earlier that its views about this particular campaign were not clear, it reinforced the point that it might not be the right body to be involved. Given that two members of the Committee are Ministers, it is difficult to see whether they would be acting in their position as Ministers—the Deputy Prime Minister is an ex officio member, although the Government are neutral about the result of the referendum—or as protagonists. The two Ministers involved have their own views, so I fear that this might drag the Speaker’s Committee into the debate. Hon. Members have already warned of the dangers of bringing the Electoral Commission directly into the debate, so this provides an example of a similar danger.

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend is making a very strong argument for the Electoral Commission not to put out any information at all. If the Speaker’s Committee is fit to appoint the Electoral Commission, surely it is a fit body to hold it to account. Otherwise, to whom is the Electoral Commission accountable?

[Mr Harper]

If my hon. Friend waits until I have developed my remarks further, he might be a little happier.

If we are to allow the Electoral Commission to publish some information—I shall come on to the details later—we must allow it to be flexible, so putting in these extra hurdles is not sensible. The commission already produces lots of guidance—admittedly not perhaps in such charged circumstances—without any sort of approval, and it works fairly well.

Amendment 247 starts from the laudable assumption that we want to ensure that information provided to voters in the referendum—and most certainly if it is provided by the Electoral Commission—is neutral and fair. I fear, however, that it might have an unforeseen consequence by preventing the Electoral Commission from publishing information or giving the yes and no sides a veto in the 28 days before votes are cast. It might encourage the Electoral Commission to publish information earlier than that, which I do not think would be particularly helpful for voters—effectively stopping the publication of information during what voters would perceive as the campaign period. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) made a good point when he said that giving either player on the pitch an effective veto might be a recipe for grief and mischief.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex has anticipated my next argument and tried to clear it out of the way. When asked about the neutrality of the Electoral Commission last week, he said that he had “the highest respect” for Jenny Watson and that

“because of her previous position, she will want to be seen to be as impartial as possible”.—[Official Report, 12 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 204.]

I think that is correct.

I strongly suspect that when the commission considers what factual information it is going to publish in practice, it will come to the same conclusion as the Government. Before Second Reading, the Government published a short factsheet, which we placed in the Library. It was on the first-past-the-post system—for want of a better description—and the alternative vote. Although the two Ministers involved have a difference of opinion on the outcome of the referendum, we were very clear that the Government document needed to be neutral. The amount of information that can be produced on the two voting systems—the current one and the proposed new system—without being drawn into their merits, is very limited. That is why we ended up producing a factual and neutral document, not a very comprehensive one, which we have placed in the Library. I suspect that the Electoral Commission will reach the same conclusion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham thus made a good point, and, as I say, I believe that the commission will reach the same conclusion.

That is not to say that there is no value in producing the information. Research done earlier into the question that should be asked revealed that a number of members of the public did not understand terms such as “House of Commons” and “Parliament”—even basic information like that. We might consider providing such information unnecessary, but it might be of great use to enable voters to make a decision. A great deal of information that is neutral and factual can help to get voters up to a level that we would take for granted, without trespassing on the merits of the arguments behind the two voting systems.

[Mr Jenkin]

Can we therefore put my hon. Friend’s neutrality to the test? Is it true that under the alternative vote system, no one can get elected without obtaining more than 50% of the votes?

[Mr Harper]

I will give a brief answer, as Mr Gale will tell me off if I stray too far from the amendments and we will debate this issue again when we get to clause 7. Someone can be elected. One has to have 50% of the votes remaining in the count at that stage. Under our system, which is optional preferential, voters do not have to express a preference. If a significant number do not express a preference for candidates, someone could get elected without having 50% of the votes cast in the first place, but they do have to have 50% of those remaining in the count. That is a very simple, straightforward, factual answer, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will probe me on it further when we debate clause 7 and the mechanics of the system that we plan to introduce.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Mark Harper

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who does not appear to be present at the moment, said that he might be the only speaker for the Government. Fortunately my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) chipped in with some additional support. I can reassure him and, indeed, the Chief Whip that I too intend to speak on behalf of the Government.

All the amendments seek to delay the date on which the referendum takes place, either proposing a specific alternative or suggesting a mechanism enabling the date to be determined later. Some, including amendments 4 and 126, are intended to prevent the combination of the referendum with other polls.

I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed about the combination of the polls next May, but they ignore the fact that it is not unusual to combine elections. Many of us, either this year or in 2005, were elected at a general election, determining who would govern the country, on a day on which people were voting in other elections. I therefore do not think it reasonable to suggest that people are not capable of making decisions about various levels of government and voting on referendums on the same day.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am reluctant to intervene so early in my hon. Friend’s speech. However, I think that there can be a justification for combining different elections on the same day, simply because the political parties are likely to be fighting analogous campaigns in those elections. The difference between that and combining a referendum with an election is that the referendum issue is, or should be—as the Electoral Commission suggested in 2002—elevated above party politics. It is rather more difficult to elevate the debate about the referendum issue above party politics if those taking part in referendum campaigns are taking part in party political election campaigns at the same time. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) made that point extremely well.

[Mr Harper]

I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend that parties campaign on the same issues. In 2005, when elections to Gloucestershire county council were taking place and I was also fighting a general election, we were campaigning on very different issues. We were campaigning on national issues for the purposes of the general election, but on specific local issues for the purposes of the Gloucestershire election.

Our programme for government made a commitment to the public to hold the referendum. We feel that the public have a right to expect that commitment to be delivered promptly, and we believe that holding the referendum on 5 May next year will deliver it.

I do not follow the argument about differential turnouts. Most of the country will vote next year, 84% of the electorate in the United Kingdom and 81% of the electorate in England. It is not true that everyone in England will be faced with other elections, but the vast majority will. A significant amount of money—about £30 million—can be saved for the taxpayer. Although that is not a reason for combining elections, it seems to me that if there is to be a referendum and if there is no other obvious reason why a combination does not make sense, going out of our way to spend an extra £30 million, particularly at a time when money is tight, would be perverse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

The Government’s position is very clear: there is an imperative to get the results of the elections to Parliament, the Assemblies and local councils decided first, because it is important who runs those organisations. The result of the referendum is important, but given that any change will not come in until the next election, the counting of the referendum will take place after the other counts. The Government have made that position clear and it is shared by the Electoral Commission. This might be a little frustrating for those who want the referendum result to be given as early as possible, but it is important that elections are counted first. That was the very clear sense that emerged from the previous Parliament when we debated when the general election count should take place. Results of elections need to be heard first.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who is in his place, referred to the Government’s view of the referendum outcome and gave all sorts of thoughts as to how we had arrived at the date. Of course the Government are neutral about the outcome of the referendum. The two coalition parties are not, but the Government do not have a view. When the Deputy Prime Minister and I were considering the Bill and its details that was the view that we jointly took.

I also do not take my hon. Friend’s view, which we debated a little following his intervention, about treating votes differently. I do not buy the argument that, because some parts of the United Kingdom are voting and some are not, that in some sense treats voters differently. Even voters in the parts of England that do not have other elections next year are perfectly capable of listening to the arguments. They have the same ability to go out to vote as anybody else, and I do not understand this argument about differential turnout that he and other hon. Friends raised.

[Mr Jenkin]

The Minister is dealing with the House with his customary courtesy. I quoted a leading academic on the subject of referendums, and he could not think of any previous referendum in any other democratic country that was held concurrently with other polls in some parts of the country, while in other parts of the country there were no other elections. Which example are we following? Which example is the Electoral Commission drawing on in support of the idea of concurrent elections? Can he give a single example from anywhere in the world where a referendum has been held at a time when there are elections in some parts of the country but not in others?

[Mr Harper]

Off the top of my head, no, I cannot, but I do not see that that point is at all valid. I do not see that there is any problem with voters being able to make the decisions sensibly. My hon. Friend underrates those whom we ask to vote for us. His point is partly answered if we consider this year’s general election. There was a combination of a general election and local elections in some parts of the United Kingdom, but not everywhere. Some voters voted in more than one election, and some did not. I do not think that that had an impact on the results of either the local elections or the general election. If Members think that the situation meant that the results were illegitimate, that rather impacts on the results of those of us who are Members of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jenkin]

If my hon. Friend studies the focus group research conducted by the Electoral Commission, he will see that what voters found most confusing about the question was the term “alternative vote”. Voters have very little idea what that is. Now the Electoral Commission has told us that it will produce literature explaining what it is to voters, but would it not be better to give the alternative vote system its proper name, which is, in fact, “optional preferential voting with instant run-off”? That would explain exactly what it is, leaving no ambiguity.

[Mr Harper]

I expected my hon. Friend to make the point that he has just made, because I have seen his amendment to that effect. Although what he says is accurate, I do not think that putting the question in that way would lead to an improvement—

[Mr Jenkin]

It might put people off.

[Mr Harper]

That may well be the case, and my hon. Friend and I might find that a very happy outcome, but when the Government drafted the original question we were very clear about the fact—which was confirmed by the Electoral Commission’s research—that it was neutral and not biased. The Government’s position is that we very much want the referendum, but are neutral about the outcome. The two coalition parties are not neutral about it, but the Government are: that is, Ministers are neutral in their capacity as Ministers. I am glad that the commission found that our question was neutral and not biased.

However, my hon. Friend has hit on a good point: the need to ensure that voters know what they are voting on. We thought it important to include in the Bill the details of the specific form of alternative vote that would be brought into effect in the event of a “yes” vote in the referendum. My hon. Friend characterised it correctly as an optional preferential system. No doubt the Electoral Commission will conduct some education in a neutral and unbiased way. The two campaigns will also explain not just the mechanics of the system, but the outcomes and potential impact of introducing it or retaining the existing system. I am convinced that by the end of the campaign, voters will be in no doubt about the consequences, and will therefore be able to make a very clear decision on 5 May next year.