Amendments to Bills (Explanatory Statements)

Debate between Charles Walker and David Heath

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman will find that I make many astute comments and they are never inadvertent. No, that is not the tension we want in the House; we want understanding, and we want sensible debate focused on the issues at stake, not guesswork as to what those might be. It does not matter whether it comes from the official Opposition, a Back-Bench Member or the Government: clarity is an addition and support to the value of our debate in this House. I find it difficult to understand why anyone would take a different view.

I know that whichever way the debate goes this evening, the Government will produce an explanatory statement every time an amendment is tabled. I have no confidence, I am afraid—for the reasons exemplified by the approach of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David)—that the Opposition will do the same. I am afraid that the argument that they do not have the resources to produce such statements is a canard. First, as the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) said, it takes very little resource to do so. Secondly, let us explode the myth that every Member who tables an amendment writes it himself or herself. That is not the case. Amendments are often prepared by well-resourced outside bodies that would have no problem whatsoever providing an explanatory statement. If all else fails, the official Opposition have something called Short money—a considerable amount of money to support their parliamentary activities, including the tabling of amendments. What is the problem?

I believe that the amendment is sensible and I will support it this evening. Let me finish on one specific point. I note that the Chair of the Procedure Committee has been supported in a remarkable act of solidarity by the Leader of the House, the Deputy Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and the shadow Deputy Leader of the House. Although I am glad that they can provide that support to the Procedure Committee, I wonder whether that is appropriate on what is essentially a House matter concerning our procedure. It appears to oblige the payroll vote to support the original motion rather than to vote according to what those Members consider to be the rights and wrongs. I am afraid that I think that this is a matter on which the House should decide, not the Government.

[Mr Charles Walker]

May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that in the past three and a half years I have never sought the support of the Executive in any way, as demonstrated by my voting record? If they want to support a recommendation made by the Procedure Committee, that is entirely down to those on the Front Bench, but it is not something that I have sought or would ever want to see.

[Mr Heath]

I absolutely accept that statement and it doubles my admiration for the solidarity expressed by those on the two Front Benches in supporting the hon. Gentleman. However, as a consequence of that, many members of the Government are sitting watching monitors wondering whether this chap will ever shut up so that they can move towards a vote. They are obliged to stay here to ensure that a rebel amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion does not succeed. I regret that, but I hope that we will have a sensible debate and that whichever view prevails this evening, every amendment will eventually have a short explanatory statement stating what the devil it is for.

Members’ Salaries

Debate between Charles Walker and David Heath

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I did not hear the hon. Gentleman say what he said that he had said about my right hon. Friend—I heard something quite different—but we shall have to look at the Official Report to be sure.

Once IPSA has control of Members’ salaries, it will be entirely independent and it will not be for me or for anyone else to tell it how to do its job. Independent assessment is right—we all agree about that. In principle, Members of Parliament should not vote on their own pay. But in a House that does not flinch from having an opinion on the remuneration of others, we cannot just ignore the perception or consequences of an increase of our own pay.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I do not think that a single Member of Parliament wants this wretched 1% pay rise. What we wanted was the chance as Members of Parliament to do the right thing and table our own motion to decline it. What we are getting, I am afraid, in a robust speech from the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench, is Executive posturing at our expense and it does him no favours at all.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but I think that the House has been given the opportunity to decide whether it wants that 1% pay increase, and it must make that decision.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Charles Walker and David Heath

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting the Committee straight on that.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) supported the new clause. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) made the important point that the oversupply of Ministers was not best addressed by their being put in the House of Lords. I entirely agree. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex expressed a contrary view, saying that he rather liked having Ministers in the House of Lords, but I am not sure that I agree with him.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I do not like the idea of lots of Ministers being in the House of Lords, but the fact is that there are currently eight unpaid Ministers there. If the hon. Gentleman does not want them to be there, why on earth are the Government putting them there?

[Mr Heath]

I will let the hon. Gentleman into a secret: I am not the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister who makes appointments. I am simply saying that I do not think we would improve the present position by putting more Ministers in the House of Lords. In the last Parliament, members of the Cabinet—Secretaries of State in charge of Departments—were in the House of Lords, and we had no way of holding them to account. That was an affront to this elected House, and I am pleased that we have put it right.

Let me explain why I cannot support the new clause, although I have a degree of sympathy with the view of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

Without rehearsing arguments from other parts of the Bill—we must not do that—I can say that the interesting thing is that the proposal to reduce the number of Members and equalise constituencies seeks to make some Members who represent very many fewer constituents than others have the same work load as those of us who represent larger constituencies; we comprise about a third of the House.

[Mr Charles Walker]

The Deputy Leader of the House questioned whether it is wise to put an arithmetical limit on the number of Ministers, but an arithmetical limit of 95 is already in place. Is he suggesting that we remove that and just have a free-for-all in this place?

[Mr Heath]

No, I am not. I am suggesting that a slightly more complicated relationship is involved than perhaps the simple solution suggests; I have already mentioned one of the factors, which is that this solution does not take into account the position of the House of Lords and the reform of that House in which we are engaged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

No.

Let me go on to the next point, which is the timing of what is being suggested. This is not the hoary old chestnut that used to be described by the former Member for Cambridge, Mr David Howarth, as the doctrine of unripe time—everything was always for the best possible purposes, but the time was never ripe for it to happen. I am not saying that. I am simply saying that various elements of our proposals for reform of the constitutional arrangements and for the politics of this country are moving forward in various pieces of legislation and at various times. By the end of this Parliament, they will be in place, but this is not the right time for this measure.

Let me try to make some progress. The Government are committed—as the fairer Members who have contributed to the debate have already recognised—to passing power from the Executive to Parliament. The hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Backbench Business Committee created by this Government, will, I hope, recognise that that is the case—

[Mr Charles Walker]

To which hon. Gentleman was he referring?

[Mr Heath]

To the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Walker]

No, I am not a member of the—

[Mr Walker]

I should like to point out to the Deputy Leader of the House that I am not a member of the Backbench Business Committee.

[Mr Heath]

I apologise; I thought that the hon. Gentleman was. I apologise to him and to the House. I hope that it will not prove to be a resigning matter that I mistook him for a member of the Backbench Business Committee. Knowing him to be a fair-minded man I know that he will attest to the fact that this House has already moved the control of much more parliamentary time to Back-Bench Members through the Committee. We have also seen the election of Select Committee Members and Chairs, to which we have already drawn attention in this debate.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also become the first Prime Minister in history to give up the power to call a general election at the time of his choosing. I think it is clear that the Government are not looking to extend their own influence, but believe on principle that power should be dispersed. Indeed, we will bring forward legislation very soon to disperse more power to local communities and local authorities, enabling them to do their job more effectively.

I have difficulty in accepting that there is a need to put this new clause into this Bill at this time. It is now October of 2010—[Hon. Members: “Well done!”] It is good to know that Opposition Members are engaged in serious constitutional debate. There are four and a half years until the provisions of this Bill will take effect—[Hon. Members: “No.”] There are four and a half years until the provisions of the Bill on the boundary reviews and the reduction in the size of this House take effect. It does not result in an immediate change to the size of this House. We are legislating at speed to allow sufficient time for boundary reviews to be conducted nationally on the basis of a smaller House, but when we have time to reflect, we should use that time.

[Mr Heath]

Yes, it would, but my point is that new clause 7 does not perfectly encapsulate the purpose that the hon. Gentleman, the Government and I might share of making government fit for purpose in that new Parliament. Given that we do not have to pass this new clause as part of the Bill, it seems sensible to take our time, listen to representations and people’s views, and see whether we can come up with something better.

We have heard very clearly that the issue at stake is the size of the Government’s payroll vote. The proposition we have heard is that the Bill will give the Executive undue numerical dominance in the House and that we must therefore legislate now to reduce the number of Ministers here. It is a numerical fact that if the Bill becomes law, and unless we legislate to the contrary at some stage, the Government elected in 2015 will be entitled to make Ministers out of a higher proportion of the Members of the House. They will not be compelled to do so, but they will be entitled to, and recent Governments have tended to appoint as many Ministers as they can, or very close to that number. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I have acknowledged before that this issue deserves consideration, and it would not take a great detective to find the number of occasions on which I have said precisely that. On the face of it, it is not desirable that the payroll vote should be expanded as a proportion of the House’s membership. We have said that we will consider how to address this issue and we will do so.

We are told that Governments legislate too much, and the new clause concerns an issue that might be better resolved without legislation. Governments are capable of reducing the number of Ministers without being compelled to do so through legislation. More importantly, perhaps, the payroll vote is often taken to include Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who are not covered by current legislation and who would not be covered by the new clause. It is only by self-denying ordinance that those numbers are limited. Governments have clearly been capable of self-restraint, and that self-restraint would still be necessary if the new clause were accepted. As I have said, under the previous Government we had not only Ministers and PPSs, but tsars, envoys, special representatives, Regional Ministers and assistants to Regional Ministers. A lot of them have been removed but they were all elements of patronage within the House. If it is patronage we are seeking to address, then we have to address all those appointments, not just the ministerial ranks.

Let me repeat a point that was made earlier. Legislation would not cover the number of Opposition Front Benchers, which is also relevant if the concern is that there are too few independent voices from the Back Benches. I accept the principle of legislation on ministerial numbers as a back-stop, but surely the number of Ministers must be a function of need, which is not necessarily related to the number of MPs. When previous statutes increased the number of Ministers in the House, they were unrelated to any changes in the number of MPs: there has never been a clear link or a set ratio. At the moment, there can be one Minister for every 6.842 Members of Parliament or thereabouts. The new clause would enshrine that ratio in law in perpetuity. If it were to become law, the Government could appoint as Ministers no more than 87.692307 Members of the Chamber. That would be the relationship. I merely make the point that I do not believe that a simple arithmetic relationship is necessarily the right one to address.

We should not forget the purpose of having a ministerial presence in the House: we need sufficient Ministers to attend to the business in the House, to make statements, to answer questions, to introduce Bills and to contribute to debates. The House rightly expects the highest standards of accountability from its Ministers and we strive to meet those standards. Indeed, it is often complained that Ministers are too rarely seen when the House discusses issues for which they do not have direct responsibility. That reflects the reality that we demand a lot of our Ministers in this country, both to govern and to legislate.

The question of how many Ministers should sit in the House of Commons is bound up with other questions—for example, considering the number of Ministers in the House of Lords. As the Committee is aware, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is chairing a Committee on reform of the House of Lords. The Committee comprises Members from all three major political parties, as well as from both Houses—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Rhondda asks, “What’s that got to do with it?” as though reform of the House of Lords—the thing for which we have been arguing for 100 years—has nothing to do with the constitutional arrangements of this country.

The cross-party Committee is discussing all issues pertinent to reform, including size and composition, and whether the second Chamber is wholly or mainly elected. It will also discuss the position of Ministers in the reformed Second Chamber. Currently, there are far fewer Ministers in the House of Lords than in the Commons, but we will need to think carefully about how the distribution of Ministers may be affected by any changes to the size of the second Chamber, or by the introduction of elected Members.

The Committee is charged with producing a draft Bill early next year, which will then be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government hope that will be carried out by a Joint Committee of both Houses. It is possible that arguments may then be made for either a greater or smaller ministerial presence in the second Chamber. We should wait to hear the views of the Committee.

There is also an argument that the limit on Ministers in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 is arcane in other respects. For example, it makes no provision for Ministers who might fill the role on a part-time basis or a job share. It is expressed in terms of numbers of individuals rather than full-time equivalents. That should perhaps be part of any consideration.

For all those reasons, although I welcome the debate, the Government are not minded to accept the new clause. We shall reflect on the arguments made today and set out plans once we have achieved some consensus on the composition of the second Chamber, including the number of Ministers there. If it still appears—[Interruption.] I think it is important for the House to hear this. If it still appears necessary, there will be plenty of time at that stage to legislate before 2015. I urge the hon. Member for Broxbourne to withdraw the new clause, on the basis that we shall very carefully consider the arguments he has made.

[Mr Walker]

I say to new colleagues who were not here in 2009 that it was the most awful experience. We were led up the garden path by a powerful Executive and had our legs cut from underneath us. We vowed that we would never, ever let that happen again. We vowed that we would take control of this place back from the Executive.

I wish I was being braver in my new clause. All I am asking is that when the House of Commons reduces by a mere 50, we reduce the number of Ministers by a mere eight, yet in this age of new politics those on the Front Bench cannot even give us that. Colleagues, this is the night when the new politics will be born, or it will die. Please support new clause 7 tonight, to give new politics some meaning, because it will be driven by Back Benchers—it can never be driven from the Front Bench.

I call for a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

Dissolution of Parliament

Debate between Charles Walker and David Heath

Tuesday 25th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it instead removes a difficult dilemma for the monarch, who is bound under the current conventions to take the advice of the Prime Minister seeking the Dissolution. That puts the monarch in an invidious position if that advice is not consistent with the political situation that, it might be suspected, is present in the House. By removing the prerogative exercised by the Prime Minister, the monarch is in the stronger position of not being put in the embarrassing position of having to divine by means that are not clear the intentions of the House.

An automatic Dissolution following a no confidence vote would not work in this context because it would prevent another party or parties in the House from having the opportunity to form a Government. Another general election might well not be in the national interest, particularly if it is very soon after the previous election. For example, in January 1924, Mr Baldwin lost the confidence of the House and Mr MacDonald became the Prime Minister. So we have a historical precedent.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has been to many Adjournment debates. There are normally three people in such a debate, but tonight there are 60 Members in the Chamber. This issue is causing enormous concern. Can we have a period of quiet reflection? Can we establish a constitutional committee to look at the matter closely and carefully, to give all Members and our constituents the reassurance that they desire?

[Mr Heath]

We will have a period of reflection: first, we will publish the motion, which the House will consider, and then, at a later stage, we will publish the legislation, which will be considered in advance and then by both Houses of Parliament, which will give them the opportunity to have their say. I do not think that this is a precipitate process; it is carefully considered. Hon. Members such as the hon. Gentleman might well have views that they want to express on behalf of their constituents, and they will be listened to, because that is how we intend to run debates in the House.