Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Jonathan Edwards

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Well, the record will have to be found, won’t it. I completely agree with the comments made by the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) about the election period being far too long. I have some sympathy with the fact that many people now vote by post, and there are issues for electoral registration officers and all the rest. Honestly, however, it cannot be beyond the wit of woman and man in this country to bring a general election in a shorter period than we currently do.

My bigger point—I will bring my remarks to a close after this—is that the Government already have phenomenal power in this country. In our system, the amount of power that Government have in Westminster is most extraordinary. They determine every single element of the timetable and, indeed, they do more so now than they did in the time of the second world war. If we think of one of the big confidence debates, in 1939, there was the debate on the summer recess, because people who were opposed to appeasement were terrified that Neville Chamberlain as Prime Minister was going to use the recess to do a deal over Poland with Hitler. There was a chance in those days for another Member to table an amendment to the date of the recess. The rules now specify that we cannot even table an amendment to the date of the recess that has been tabled by a Government Minister.

The same is true of nearly every element of our expenditure. We cannot table a motion from the Opposition. Only a Government Minister can table a motion changing a tax, increasing a tax, laying a duty or a tax on the people, or increasing expenditure. We barely do a process of expenditure in our system at all. We do not really have a Budget, not in the sense that any other country would understand that they have a Budget. We have a statement by the Chancellor every year. The power that Government hold in this country is absolutely phenomenal and I do not think that simply to allow a few things such as a vote on Prorogation and a vote on Dissolution is too much to ask.

[Jonathan Edwards]

As a Welsh MP, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that one benefit of a fixed-term Parliament for this place is that there cannot be a clash with Welsh elections. Although the Bill says that there cannot be an election for the Senedd and a general election at the same time, the Library note states:

“Regulations can be made to hold”

an “extraordinary general” election. The question for us, if the Bill passes tonight, is: what are those extraordinary circumstances and how will UK Ministers co-ordinate with Welsh Ministers and the Welsh Parliament?

[Chris Bryant]

My personal view for some time has been that it is probably for the convenience of the people to have a more or less fixed time of the year when we have elections. The beginning of May seems to work for local elections and I do not see why it would not work for most other elections. I am not personally opposed to having several elections on the same day either. I know others are, but I think that that would be for the greater convenience of most people in the country.

My biggest fear is that the present Government have a very high theology of strong government. It feels to me akin to the Stuarts’ divine right of kings, which is not to say that they feel that they have a divine right to rule, but that they think that the Government have the divine right to rule. What makes me think this is the number of times that the Leader of the House—we had it again today from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—referred to the “addled Parliament” of 1614. It was the king who called it the “addled Parliament” in 1614 because the king did not get his way. There are many ways of interpreting what happened in the last Parliament, but the Government did not get their way—we know that. I think that when the Government feel that the constitution has to change because the Government have not managed to get their way through Parliament, that is a worrying moment.

The truth is that the whole of this system depends—I mean the word “depends” deliberately—on a very, very thin thread of confidence in the Government. I think a better way of understanding politics is that Governments govern by consent, and that consent is not just earned at a general election. It is constantly earned and has to be constantly earned in this arena—in here. I worry that the Government do not feel that way. I personally do not trust any Government who abrogate more powers to themselves. It is even worse when a Government then claim to do so in the name of democracy, as we heard in the very first sentence of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s contribution earlier. Such abrogation nearly always rapidly descends into the arrogance of office. I think that there is a particular irony in the fact that the people who shouted “Take back control” again and again now ratchet up their own control over the British constitution.

Power is always best spread thin. Even a Cabinet Minister is only dressed in a little brief authority. Our constitution must never be a plaything of the Government of the day.

Commission on Justice in Wales

Debate between Chris Bryant and Jonathan Edwards

Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I will keep my comments short because there is not a great deal of time. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) on securing the debate. I could hotly dispute every comment she made about the history of a thousand years ago, but we will have to reserve that for some other time as now is not the moment.

When there is a proposal such as the one we are debating, there is a fundamental question, which would make a significant difference, that we always must ask ourselves: is there a problem that needs fixing? I think all of us on the Labour Benches would argue that there is a problem in the delivery of justice in Wales, not least the dramatic changes to legal aid funding in Wales. Of course, the same is true across the whole of the United Kingdom, and we have all been angered by it. We have seen people unable to secure justice for themselves. It feels as if there is one law in the land for the rich and another for those who cannot afford to pay for expensive lawyers.

Many of us would say that it would be very difficult for a constituent who ends up in prison to have to serve most of their time a long way from home. It makes it far more difficult for them to return to their community and to get the support they need not to go back to a life of crime. There is clear evidence that that is the case.

There is less access to justice now because many of the courts have closed—certainly, that is true in the Rhondda. The evidence is that more people are refusing to turn up for court hearings, and consequently justice is not being well served.

There are problems with probation. I do not need to go into the nonsense of the privatisation of the probation service at length. Everyone knows that the Opposition parties were all opposed to that. I visited Cardiff prison and I know there are still significant problems with overcrowding. The staff are trying to do a good job, but they simply do not have enough personnel. My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) rightly said that there has been a dramatic—40%—cut in the Ministry of Justice’s budget, which has had very clear effects on the delivery of justice to my constituents and to everyone in Wales.

My question in relation to the proposal on the table is: does devolution solve any of those problems? I am afraid it does not. If anything, I am terrified that the Government might bite off the right hon. Lady’s hand and say, “Yes, devolve it,” because I know what happens. They devolve the power and the responsibility so that they can devolve the blame when the service is not delivered properly, because they do not devolve the right amount of funding to go with it. I agree that legal aid is underfunded in Wales, but if it is devolved to Wales and no additional funds are provided, Wales will have to find those additional funds somewhere else. That will be the health budget, the education budget or the local authority budget. I am not in favour of that.

I argue here in Westminster that we should fund legal aid properly, and that we should ensure there are proper facilities across the whole of the country so that people do not have to serve their time in prison a long way from home.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman has long-standing views on these issues, but he knows that the devolving of public policy and the funding that comes with it is determined by the Barnett formula and Barnett consequentials. If policing were devolved to Wales, as it is in Scotland and Northern Ireland, there would be a £20 million per annum bonanza for the Welsh Government to invest in safer communities. Surely, that is a good thing.

[Chris Bryant]

Actually, the police settlement figures that are out today make it pretty clear that that would not do Wales any favours. We would simply be robbing the police budget to pay for the legal aid budget. I am not sure that solves the problem.

The hon. Gentleman says that my historical views are well known, but I am not sure that he does know my views on this subject, because I have tried to keep them to myself. To be honest, I am agnostic about the devolution of justice and policing, but I am not prepared to have the Welsh Assembly take responsibility for an area of policy if the money does not go with it. That would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Autumn Budget as it Relates to Wales (Morning sitting)

Debate between Chris Bryant and Jonathan Edwards

Wednesday 7th February 2018 General Committees

[Jonathan Edwards]

The export boom that would be expected from a 20% devaluation in sterling has not occurred. That is the factual reality of the situation. The fact that the currency is not rebounding, despite the British Government apparently outlining what they want from the Brexit negotiations, indicates that the markets are betting against the British Government.

[Chris Bryant]

One of the biggest mistakes that the coalition Government made in 2010 was cutting capital budgets. That meant that we did not have the infrastructure in place that we need for a modern economy. That has hit productivity across the whole country.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Mae’r Bonheddwr anrhydeddus yn gwneud pwynt cywir iawn a byddaf yn dychwelyd i’r pwyntiau hynny yn hwyrach yn fy araith.

(Translation) The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point, and I will return to the issues he raises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The hon. Member for Caerphilly and I were in the United States a few years ago, and we had a very interesting discussion with the food lobby there. I guarantee that it carries a lot of weight, and that is a clear indication of some of the problems we will face in future.

I shall return to the Budget.

Mewn polisi ariannol y mae’r perygl arall. Mae polisi ariannol hynod lac gan y Banc Canolog wedi cynnal yr economi ers 2010, a bydd oes yr arian rhad yn diflannu’n raddol wrth i gyfraddau llog gychwyn ar eu taith tuag at normaleiddio.

Yn ystod y cyfnod hwnnw, daeth twf economaidd i ddibynnu fwyfwy ar wariant gan ddefnyddwyr fel canran o GDP. Bydd methiant i ail-gydbwyso oddi wrth economi a gynhelir gan ddyled cartrefi yn rhwystr sylweddol yn y blynyddoedd i ddod.

(Translation) Monetary policy is another danger. The ultra-loose monetary policy of the central bank has sustained the economy since 2010, and the area of cheap money will gradually be removed as interest rates begin their journey to normalisation. During that period, economic growth has become even more reliant on consumer spending as a percentage of GDP. Failure to rebalance from an economy sustained by household debt will be a significant barrier in years to come.

Personal debt is reaching the level it was at before the great crash of 2008. That should be of great concern to us all.

Mae dirwasgiadau yn dueddol o ddod bob degawd, sy’n golygu, naw mlynedd wedi chwalfa ariannol fawr 2008 ein bod yn nes at ddiwedd y cylch na’i gychwyn. Nid yw’r methiant i neidio’n ôl yn sydyn o’r chwalfa fawr ac i ail-gydbwyso yn sectoraidd a daearyddol, na dibyniaeth yr economi ar beiriant cynnal bywyd polisi arianyddol yn argoeli’n dda at y dyfodol.

(Translation) Recessions tend to come each decade, which means that nine years after the great financial crash of 2008, we are far nearer the end of the cycle than its beginning. The failure to rebound sharply from the great crash, the failure fundamentally to rebalance sectorally and geographically, and the reliance of the economy on the life support of monetary policy do not bode well for the future.

The failure to rebound quickly from the great recession, the failure to rebalance sectorally and geographically, and the decade-long dependence on the life support of ultra-loose monetary policy do not bode well for the future.

O ystyried graddfa’r her, nid yw’r Mesur Cyllid yn addas. Cyn ymdrin â rhai o gymalau’r Mesur hwn, carwn ganolbwyntio ar rai o’r darpariaethau sydd, ysywaeth, ar goll.

Mae model economaidd y Deyrnas Gyfunol a ddilynwyd ers degawdau gan holl bleidiau sefydliad San Steffan wedi ei seilio ar hyrwyddo gweithgarwch a chyfoeth yn Llundain a de-ddwyrain Lloegr. Dylai’r anghydraddoldebau daearyddol o ran cyfoeth fod yn destun cywilydd i wleidyddion San Steffan. Mae naw o’r deg rhanbarth tlotaf yng ngogledd Ewrop yn y wladwriaeth Brydeinig yn ogystal â’r un cyfoethocaf. Yn anffodus, wrth gwrs, mae gorllewin a gogledd Cymru ymysg y tlotaf. Dylai’r Trysorlys fod yn ceisio ymdrin â’r record gywilyddus hon, ac eto does dim yn y mesur cyllid hwn fydd o ddifrif yn mynd i’r afael â’r heriau o’n blaenau.

Efallai mai un o ganlyniadau Brexit fydd y bydd cwmnïau ariannol Dinas Llundain yn adleoli i Baris, Frankfurt a Dulyn. O ystyried hynny, dylai Llywodraeth Prydain ymateb drwy ganolbwyntio ar sectorau economaidd eraill, yn enwedig gweithgynhyrchu. Dylai hyn arwain at symud y pwsylais ymaith o dde-ddwyrain Lloegr i’r cenhedloedd a’r rhanbarthau.

Yn anad dim, dylai Cymru gael y grym cyllidol i lunio ein heconomi ein hunain. Mae’n warthus fod gan yr Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon setliad cyllidol a threthiannol llawer gryfach na Chymru. Oherywdd hyn, bydd economi Cymru dan anfantais sylweddol. Dydw i methu deall pam nad yw gwleidyddion o’r pleidiau Unoliaethol a bleidleisiodd o blaid rhoi mwy o bwerau i’r Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon yn barod i ddarparu ar gyfer ein cenedl ni ein hunain.

Hyd yn oed os ydym yn rhoi i’r neilltu yr anghydraddoldebau cyfansoddiadol, mae’r sefyllfa yn golygu fod Llywodraeth Cymru yn llai abl i ymyrryd yn ein heconomi. Os mai Brexit caled fydd hi, dylid datganoli portffolio cyfan o drethi, gan gynnwys treth teithwyr awyr, treth ar werth a threth gorfforaeth.

Dylai buddsoddi mewn seilwaith gael ei wasgaru’n fwy cyfartal ar draws y wladwriaeth Brydeinig.

(Translation) Considering the scale of the challenge, the Finance Bill is in no way fit for purpose. Before addressing some of the measures in the Bill, I will concentrate on some provisions that are sadly missing. The UK economic model, which has been followed for decades by all the establishment parties in Westminster, is based on promoting activity and wealth in London and the south-east of England. The geographical wealth inequality should be a matter of shame for Labour and all politicians in Westminster. Nine of the 10 poorest regions in northern Europe are in Britain, as well as the richest. Unfortunately, west Wales and north Wales are among the poorest. The Treasury’s overriding aim should be to address that shameful record, but nothing in the Finance Bill will seriously get to grips with the challenges facing us.

One consequence of Brexit might be the relocation of London-based financial companies to Paris, Frankfurt or Dublin. Given that, the British Government should focus on other economic sectors, and manufacturing in particular. That should shift the focus away from London to the nations and regions.

First and foremost, Wales should be empowered to create its own economy. It is disgraceful that Scotland and Northern Ireland have stronger financial settlements than Wales. Given that, the Welsh economy will be at severe disadvantage. I cannot understand why politicians from Unionist parties vote in favour of giving more power to Scotland and Northern Ireland, but are unwilling to do so for our own nation. Putting aside the constitutional imbalances, that means that the Welsh Government are less able to intervene in our economy. If we are to have a hard Brexit, a portfolio of taxes should be devolved, including air passenger duty, VAT and corporation tax.

Infrastructure investment should be more evenly spread across Britain. Why should Welsh taxpayers’ money be spent on English projects?

[Chris Bryant]

We had a vote last week on what we will do about the Palace of Westminster, where lots of people were anxious about us spending so much money in London. Is there not a really important thing we could do for every region of the United Kingdom? After Brexit, we will not have the skills in this country to complete the work on one of our biggest infrastructure projects, so should we not set up a parliamentary apprenticeship scheme so that people can gain those skills in Wales, with every constituency in Wales having someone working on the project here?

[Jonathan Edwards]

Mae’r Bonheddwr anrhydeddus yn codi pwynt dilys. Ces i ddim y cyfle i wneud y pwynt yma yn ystod y ddadl, ond yn bersonnol byddwn i wedi moyn symud y Senedd allan o Lundain. Rydw i’n credu byddai hynny wedi bod yn symbol o’r angen i ddatganoli’n economaidd y Wladwriaeth Brydeinig. O ystyried bod y penderfyniad bellach wedi cael ei wneud—rwy’n llongyfarch y Bonheddwr anrhydeddus ar ennill ar ei welliant—dylem nawr fanteisio ar y cyfle i sicrhau bod y buddsoddiad hynny yn cael ei wasgaru ledled y Wladwriaeth Brydeinig. Rwy’n credu bod yna job wirioneddol i’w wneud ar hynny, ac rwy’n edrych i’r Bonheddwr anrhydeddus i gynnig arweiniad, o ystyried mai fe sydd wedi arwain y ddadl i aros fan hyn—dyna job fach iddo fe dros y blynyddoedd nesaf.

(Translation) The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point. I did not have the opportunity to make this point during the debate, but I wanted to move Parliament away from London, because that would be a symbol of the need to devolve the British states economically, too. Given that a decision has been made—I congratulate him on getting his amendment to that motion through—we should take every opportunity to ensure that that investment is spread across Britain. There is a real job to be done there, and I look to him to give leadership on that over the next few months, given that he has led the debate for remaining here.

Multiannual Financial Framework

Debate between Chris Bryant and Jonathan Edwards

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

This debate comes at a very particular time in the economic situation in Europe. The debate on this multiannual round did not start a week or a year ago; it started three or four years ago, and it is vital that we give a clear message to the European Union, the Commission and the other member states that, however ludicrously pro-European we might be—as is the case with me—we do not believe that the European Union and the Commission should spend more money at a time when every member state is having to make cuts.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not. A lot of people want to take part in the debate. Perhaps he will catch Mr Speaker’s eye later.

Mr Barroso, in his introduction to the original version of the Commission’s suggestions, said:

“The European budget is the instrument for investment in Europe and growth in Europe.”

That is arrogance of the highest degree. It might be one instrument—a tiny part of the equation that is trying to refocus Europe towards a more competitive economy that is able to fight for jobs and added value against countries such as Russia, China and Mexico—but the biggest instruments must surely be the member states, or even the nations and regions within them. For instance, the factor that will make a difference to the resolution of Spain’s problems will almost certainly be the economic future of Catalunya and whether it invests in IT and future industries. It will not be the EU budget.

I am also convinced that, whatever happens to the EU budget, it will not make a dramatic difference to solving the problems in Greece or in Spain. The issues in those two countries are completely different. In Spain, for instance, the sub-prime mortgage market and the way in which houses were constructed along the coast, often for the British ex-pat market, is the single biggest problem that is dragging down the Spanish economy. So I say to Mr Barroso that, although I am ardently pro-European and I believe that the European Union has been one of the great political success stories of the past 100 years, I do not believe that the EU budget is the way to resolve the problems of those countries.

Government Members have been talking today about the small-ticket items in the EU’s expenditure. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury held rather different views from those he holds today when he was a member of the Social Democratic party. When I was a member of the Conservative party, I held exactly the same views on Europe as those I hold today. The sadness is that the Conservative party has abandoned its past.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Jonathan Edwards

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that we are more efficient than the official Opposition.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I am very fond of him, so may I give him a tip? It is not to believe what he reads in newspapers, not to believe what he reads by Guido Fawkes—most hon. Members would agree with that—and not to listen to Liberal Democrats, who will support and vote for the cut from 50p to 45p, but to focus his anger on the Government, who are introducing this change.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful for that intervention. I am coming to that. Unfortunately, the papers did not report Labour’s shameless record on some of these issues.

Monday’s Second Reading saw Members from both sides continuing to trade a barrage of figures to explain why the additional rate should be cut or remain as it is. I thought the contribution from the hon. Member for Pontypridd on Monday night was excellent in explaining the political and economic value of the 50p rate. It is clear that there is no agreement over the mechanics of the issue, and given that Labour’s agreement to the 50p rate in the first place was based on revenue-raising rather than principle, that is a very important fact.

The Treasury should therefore instigate a report on the income-shifting and avoidance measures used to lower the amount of tax paid under the additional rate, and on possible revenue from a 50% and a 45% rate, taking into consideration the outlying factors that always impact heavily on the first year of any tax innovation. Such a report would clarify the situation and allow the House to make a considered judgment one way or the other in the next Finance Bill. As always, the majority of people pay the tax that they should, but there are some who will always try to avoid as much as possible.

The artificial shock of the Chancellor at the scale of tax avoidance suggests that he takes Members of this House for fools. Although I accept the argument for a relationship between a lower taxation rate and economic growth and perhaps larger revenues, I find that argument counter-intuitive for income tax rates on this occasion. The majority of those who seek to avoid paying income tax at 50% will, I suspect, also seek to avoid paying it at 45%—and, as the Government contend over the 50% rate, they will have the resources to avoid doing so.

My amendment 76, which would require a review, neatly coincides with the Opposition’s amendment, so I assume that when my amendment is pressed to a vote they will join us in the Lobby. After all, they have already signed up to my amendment 7, which, I shall explain for the benefit of the Committee, is consequential on the additional rate changes relating to dividend and trust payments, the transferring of retirement benefits to a non-additional rate tax payer and the notional tax credit attached to some capital payments. We look forward to dividing on amendment 76 at the appropriate time.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and, of course, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who should take heart from the fact that although our initial reaction on the Government Benches perhaps disproves the adage that everybody goes crazy about a sharp-dressed man, we agreed with some of the points he made, which were valid. I will cover in my speech some of the points on which I perhaps do not agree with him.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Jonathan Edwards

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, I am aware of that and I completely agree with the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The Government cannot just pull at individual strings of the constitutional settlement, because we will just end up unravelling the whole jumper: that is the law of unintended consequences, which we are in danger of having thrust upon us.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that four years seems to be the normal cycle. Does he agree that if the Government are intent on pushing ahead with a five-year fixed term, the natural thing to do would be to do the same thing with the cycle for the National Assembly for Wales, and change its term to five years?

[Chris Bryant]

I suppose it would, but I am not in favour of five-year terms. Political events change at a dramatic pace these days and a five-year term would not meet that requirement. I suspect that such an arrangement would mean that Governments both here and in the devolved Administrations would more regularly be at the fag-end of their sense of having a mandate, and a four-year provision would be much better. I am sure that we shall return to this matter on Third Reading.

I have no desire to delay the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I think that I have made my point. In essence, it is that we believe it would be better to have a four-year fixed-term Parliament, because that would help us to avoid the elections for the devolved Administrations coinciding with the general election. We need change only one other measure to make sure that that never happens; we need to provide that we do not start the clock again when there has been an early general election. The Government’s intention is to try to make us fall into the rhythm of fixed-term Parliaments and not have lots of early general elections, and such a provision would give people an added incentive not to seek an early general election because they would know that they would then have only a short Parliament before the next general election, which would fall on the previously arranged date. Without any further do, I shall conclude and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Higher Education Fees

Debate between Chris Bryant and Jonathan Edwards

Thursday 9th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards]

My Scottish friends have an even better and honourable position of having no tuition fees, and I wish that that was the case in my country. We are putting forward the best-case scenario given what we face in our country. The Welsh Government will pay for this measure by top-slicing the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales teaching grant, but Welsh higher education institutions will still enjoy a higher level of teaching grant support than institutions in England. The UK Government are proposing an 80% cut in the university teaching grant in England, moving the cost of education almost completely on to the student—it is the consumer who pays. The cut in teaching grant in Wales will be 35% and, thus, the vital contribution and principle of public funding for higher education will be maintained.

[Chris Bryant]

But is it not also important that one of the measures introduced in Wales ensures that individual youngsters in Wales can study any course anywhere in the United Kingdom that is right for them? The money will follow them, including to English universities. For example, they could not train to be a vet in a Welsh university, but they will be able to do so elsewhere under this system.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and of course I fully agree. I made that point earlier in a slightly different context.

That measure is a good deal for Welsh students and a good deal for Welsh universities.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Jonathan Edwards

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I was remiss not to mention it.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Because it is not true.

[Jonathan Edwards]

We will have that debate later.

A five-year Parliament was not in either governing party’s manifesto, and was not put to a public vote. I often wonder, as I watch the coalition Government’s policies morph before me and see stories about the coalition discussions leak out in books and in the Sunday press, just how much influence Back-Bench Lib Dems had over the policy negotiations. I wonder whether they, like me, wake up and wonder which policy of theirs will be changed today. As we are getting used to saying in Wales, “Another day, another Lib-Dem U-turn.”

So, we are still no closer to understanding why five and not four years is the chosen length for a fixed term of the UK Parliament. Perhaps a wag on the Government Benches—by that I mean a wit, not the more common tabloid usage of the word—was correct when she referred to the next election date as being “ the date of the next election, cementing the coalition”. Others think that this is a response to the economic cycle, and the hope is that by 2015 the worm will have turned and the tremendous gamble with our economy, our livelihoods and our communities that we witnessed in the comprehensive spending review will have paid off, and we will be enjoying the fruits of a hard-won recovery. Either way, it appears to be a decision made from political expediency, and that is not in the best interests of the electorate or democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

These changes will have a clear impact as electors find themselves not merely with the added burden of an extra piece of paper to complete, as they will in the clashing elections next May and the alternative vote referendum, but voting for different constituency locations. I am proud to serve on the Welsh Affairs Committee in my first term in Parliament. The Committee received evidence from a number of organisations on these potential problems, and reported on them in our first publication of this Session, entitled “'The implications for Wales of the Government’s proposals on constitutional reform”. We heard, for example, testimony from Lewis Baston, senior research fellow with Democratic Audit. He said that

“the elections for Westminster and the Assembly would be taking place on different systems on the same day, and more complicatedly on two sets of boundaries which will hardly ever correlate with each other.”

Philip Johnson told our Committee that the coincidence of elections could have “horrendous” consequences in 2015.

[Chris Bryant]

I respect Lewis Baston enormously, but he is slightly wrong: there would be three different sets of boundaries in Wales and Scotland, because there are majority elected seats as well as regional seats. There is no guarantee in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill that UK parliamentary boundaries will respect the boundaries of the regions used for Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament elections, so there will be three different boundaries.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I was coming to exactly that point. Electors will have three ballot papers: one for the Westminster constituency, which will be a separate location from the Assembly constituency, and a third paper for Assembly regional candidates. Scotland already has distinct UK and Scottish Parliament boundaries, but they remain fixed in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

Once again, my hon. Friend makes an important point.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is being a little unfair to the Liberal Democrats. So far it is not a broken promise, but just a promise. It might become a broken promise, but at the moment it is just a promise.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that correction.

On Second Reading, the Deputy Prime Minister appeared somewhat surprised that having elections on the same day might cause problems. In fact, he seemed slightly perplexed, as if he had not previously considered the possibility. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who noted that there was provision in the various devolution Acts for those legislatures to vary elections by up to four weeks only, the Deputy Prime Minister said:

“That is exactly…why we need to consider whether the existing provisions are sufficient.”—[Official Report, 13 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 627.]

That was commented on shortly after by the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who, quite understandably, wondered why, if the Deputy Prime Minister was already aware of the potential for problems, no provision had been made in the Bill to counter them. Admissions of that sort show up this Bill as having been flung together, rather than considered and properly scrutinised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to you, Mr Hoyle. I want to speak only because the Minister made some announcements in his speech that are obviously significant. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, in a rather self-righteous tone, that he made them to Parliament, and we are delighted that he has done so—I presume that that is a criticism of his colleagues, not of anybody else in the Chamber. However, he has made some important announcements. He excoriated my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) for referring to the Government position before we had heard what it was, but as the Government chose not to make their position known until the very end of the debate, it is hardly her fault. As he knew that he was going to make his announcement this evening, he could perfectly well have written to all parties concerned to make it clear that he wanted to consult on the issue. I suggest that that would have shown slightly more respect to the Committee and to the various political parties involved.

The Minister is proposing a change, but I note that so far he has not been prepared to say whether, if he intends to table further amendments, he will do so in this House. I wholly respect the powers and intelligence of the House of Lords to make sensible amendments, and I hope that it will do so to several pieces of legislation. However, I believe that amendments to legislation that affects elections should be debated and made in the elected House, not in the unelected Chamber. That is why I hope that at some point the Minister will make good his suggestions, that he will guarantee to debate those amendments in this House first, and that we will not have Report stage until such time as those amendments have been made in this House.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Diolch, Mr Hoyle. We have had an interesting and informative debate. I shall quickly run through some of the contributions. As ever, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) made some passionate and honest points. He is always respected throughout the House. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) argued coherently and in detail. I cannot support his amendments, but I am glad that he will support ours this evening. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) made excellent points about the need to ensure that UK general elections are held separately, and I am glad that the Minister accepted those points. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made pertinent points about the Bill essentially entrenching the coalition rather than being concerned with democracy. I can only apologise to him for getting to the Table Office before him.

With her usual eloquence, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) highlighted the views of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, and I thank her for her comments. The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) spoke passionately about the political motives behind the Bill. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) gave an insightful historical lesson on the US constitution and relevant comparisons. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) reminded us of the 147,000 spoiled ballots in Scotland in 2007 due to the coupling of the local government elections and the Scottish Parliament elections on the same day.

The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), as ever, made a compelling and entertaining speech, and I only wish that I had his oratorical talents.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Jonathan Edwards

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I do recall my hon. Friend raising the matter of “The Wrong Trousers” and Wallace and Gromit, but I think his metaphor does not work in this case. Gromit was laying down pieces of track ahead of him, whereas the Government are laying down pieces of track behind them—pieces of track that they have not been over; this is putting the horse before the cart before the horse before the cart. There is a real problem in the process that the Government have adopted, and I very much hope that their lordships will want to examine it carefully.

What is also wrong is that because the Government have tabled 28 pages of amendments that we have to debate on Report, they have had to set aside a chunk of time for us to do so. That has been done not because the House wanted it, or to bring about greater consensus on the Bill, but to meet the Government’s own business needs, and as a result of their own haste. The fact that we have not had a single moment’s debate about the decoupling of seats in the Welsh Assembly and their coterminosity with Westminster seats is a disgrace. If, as we had requested, a knife had not been put in yesterday night’s proceedings, it would have been possible for us to have debated that matter now, rather than the measures that we have to debate at this point.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree when a clause is specific to a constituent part of the United Kingdom, there should be allotted time to debate that clause?

[Chris Bryant]

I am afraid that I sort of disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is important that there should be time to debate such a clause. We tabled an amendment yesterday that a clause should be deleted from the Bill, just so that we could have that debate. On Report there is no other way of having that debate—but I am not sure that it is always right to put in knives, because that leads to some complexities in the management of time. That is why we argued that we should not have knives.