House of Lords Reform Bill

Dan Byles Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman has discussed the problem with having different types of peers in the new upper House, but nobody has yet discussed the new ministerial Members, who will, of course—[Interruption.] Well, not in terms of numbers. The fact is that the Bill will allow the Prime Minister of the day to impose an unlimited number of ministerial peers who are not appointed by the independent appointments system.

[Sadiq Khan]

The draft Bill advocated the Prime Minister having the power to appoint Ministers, who would be members of the legislature for as long as they were Ministers. However, the Bill published last week says they can stay for 15 years, which is really quite remarkable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

The most fundamental principle of any democracy is that those who exercise political power over us must be elected by us, yet everywhere in the UK it is evident that the long march to extend the franchise has a long way to go. The most powerful and influential in our society are not directly elected—the media, the bankers and the civil service. Even the chief executive of our Government is not directly elected. We are still one of the few western democracies in which the people are not trusted to elect directly their Prime Minister—the top politician in the land. Our problem is not too much democracy, but not enough democracy.

Elections are almost a guarantee of powerlessness. Anyone contaminated by contact with the ballot box is edged around by regulation, oversight and rules that dull our enterprise and inhibit our leadership. For example, locally elected councillors are bound by 1,500 Acts of Parliament, which render them as little more than agents of the centre. Elected Members of Parliament have a fleeting existence as an electoral college on general election night, but thereafter are laughably alleged to hold to account the very Executive that whips them to vote for them several times a day, every day, every week.

[Dan Byles]

Presumably, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will be delighted that a large number of Government Members will show that we are more independent by not giving in to the Whips and by voting against the programme motion?

[Mr Allen]

I very much hope that Government Members exercise their independence in pursuit of parliamentary sovereignty and a wider democracy rather than in pursuit of any special interest—I am sure that will happen.

In all those areas, reform is a relatively simple matter, but the most centralised state of all western democracies is blocking the way—the sclerotic relic of an empire, with England as the last country to throw off its yoke. The regime is so suffocating and so clueless about the alternatives that some of our blood relatives in the nations of our kingdom feel driven to break free of it.

There is an alternative, as there always has been, and as the best elements of the philosophies of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal parties have always known and for which they have always fought: the ballot box. No one, and above all hon. Members, needs to be afraid of the ballot box or of spreading electoral possibility. The ballot box is the weapon feared most not by those outside the House, but by Executive power, whether in the House or elsewhere. The vote can deliver devo-max not just for the nations of the UK, but for this Parliament and for locally elected councils, and above all for individuals in our country.

Today, we will see whether this elected House, this poor, whipped, dwarf of a legislator, can reconnect with its historic mission to extend the franchise, or whether we decide to pull up the drawbridge so that none can share our meagre status. Can we outgrow this fairytale of parliamentary sovereignty and our self-delusion about the primacy of the first Chamber? The cold, harsh reality is that we have Executive sovereignty and the primacy of Government. That is what dominates British politics, not some fairyland where Members of Parliament dominate the political scenario.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

It is an honour and a privilege to speak in a debate of such fundamental importance. We have heard some truly fascinating speeches from Members on both sides of the House. I personally take the view that the weight of argument is firmly on the side of those who do not support the Bill, but we have heard some interesting speeches across the board. It is a particular honour to sit next to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), who made what must have been a particularly difficult speech.

The economy is struggling, the eurozone is tanking, the banks are in crisis, and Syria is burning. Our constituents must be blinking in bewilderment at the time, effort and political energy being expended—

[Mr MacNeil]

Has the hon. Gentleman made many speeches in this House on those subjects, or is he just here to talk about House of Lords reform?

[Dan Byles]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am here today to speak about this extremely important issue, but I speak regularly in this Chamber about key events and intervene in others. I am not one of those Members who chalks up short speeches on TheyWorkForYou and then judges themselves by the number of speeches they have made rather than their quality.

As I said, our constituents are blinking in bewilderment at the amount of time we are spending discussing this issue, but discuss it we must—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Mr MacNeil, I have had enough. You keep interrupting everybody. This debate has been going on all day. I ask you to sit there quietly and stop trying to disrupt other people’s speeches.

[Dan Byles]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Discuss this issue we must. Most Conservative Members are of the view that we would rather not, but if we have to it must be discussed fully and properly. This is a fundamental and irreversible constitutional change. It is not normal Government business. The idea that such a change should be rammed through with the routine whipping and programming is unthinkable.

The Bill is not about democracy. Too many people who support it seem to think that simply using the word “democracy” shuts down the debate. That is not the case. I was a soldier for nine years. I took the Queen’s commission and served Her Majesty. I was taught at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and the Royal Military College at Shrivenham to uphold and preserve democracy and the rule of law, which I do. I challenge anybody in this Chamber to tell me that I do not support democracy. That I support it does not mean that I must support the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) described eloquently our complex and ancient constitution. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) made a passionate speech on the nature of the upper House and its specific and unique role in our constitution, which does not automatically require that its Members be elected. I was rather hoping that I would be called to speak immediately after him, because I would have been tempted to say, “What he said,” and sit down.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) ran through a list of other parts of our system that are elected. Interestingly, I have the same list in my speech in order to make the opposite point. My constituents already have the opportunity to elect every level of government. They elect parish councillors, borough councillors, county councillors, Members of Parliament and MEPs. They elect their Government when they elect their MP. That is our system. If we move, in an ill-thought-out way, to a system in which they also elect, in a manner of speaking—I am not a fan of this system of proportional representation—Members of the other place, which House will form the Government? That system will result in confusion and chaos.

This change is being imposed. There is no suggestion that it will go to the people in a referendum, unlike the question of whether the people of Coventry want an elected mayor, as numerous colleagues have pointed out. Apparently, this fundamental change to the constitution of our country is not suitable for a referendum. The people who want to impose this fundamental change should at least come to the House to explain what the upper Chamber is supposed to do, what it is about the current system that is failing to achieve that end and how the proposals will achieve that end better.

It seems to me that the Bill fails in what it sets out to achieve. It will not make the upper House more accountable. I will not repeat the arguments involving the party list system and the 15-year terms, but the new Members will not be accountable. The Bill will not end the Prime Minister’s right of patronage. Ministerial Members will be appointed by the Prime Minister, not by an independent appointments commission, and he will be able to appoint as many of them as he wants. As long as fewer than eight of them are serving as Ministers at the time, he can appoint more. He can appoint eight on day one. If they all resign on day two, he can appoint eight more. He can do that every day. The power of parliamentary patronage is therefore still there. That means that it will not be an 80% elected Chamber. If each Prime Minister appoints only eight ministerial Members in each Parliament and they stay for three Parliaments, it will be a 74% elected Chamber. Let us call it what it is. And that is ignoring the Lords Spiritual.

[Jesse Norman]

Has my hon. Friend raised that topic with the Ministers who are responsible for constitutional affairs? I would be very interested to hear what the answer was.

[Dan Byles]

My hon. Friend is being naughty, because he knows that I have. He knows that there was some confusion in the Ministers’ office about how many times the Prime Minister could appoint eight ministerial Members. At one point, it was suggested that they could appoint only eight per Parliament. However, a constitutional expert in the upper House, whom I shall not name because I have not asked his permission, assures me that as the Bill is written, there is no limit on the number of ministerial Members who can be appointed.

The scope for constitutional deadlock that the Bill will bring about has been described at great length and with eloquence. Those who want us to give the other place what they see as more democratic legitimacy cannot run away from the fact that it will want to use and exert that legitimacy.

I am pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister is back in his place, because I would like to pick up on one of his points, if he is listening. He is not. He was naughty in his opening speech when he discussed the potential costs of the reform, because he included the costs of reducing the size of this place. The House will know that that was in entirely separate legislation that will be on the statute book regardless of whether this Bill is accepted. That reduction should form the baseline from which the costs of the Bill are judged.

I stood on a manifesto commitment to seek consensus on House of Lords reform. It is quite clear that that consensus has not been reached. When the Joint Committee, in an unprecedented move, issued a minority report signed by almost half its members urging that a constitutional convention be set up, because this matter was too important to be left to grubby political horse-trading, people should have sat up and taken notice. That is why I cannot support the Bill and certainly cannot support the programme motion.

Informal European Council

Dan Byles Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. There are two things that we need to do. First, we must ensure that countries that can increase production, such as Saudi Arabia, sell more oil to the countries in Europe that were reliant on Iranian crude. We then need to persuade Asian countries that might buy Iranian crude not to do the deals that they might otherwise have planned. We need to take action on both fronts.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I strongly welcome the agreement to reduce regulatory burdens on SMEs and micro-enterprises. Although I do not expect the Prime Minister to give us a list today, will he tell the House when we can expect to see more detail on precisely which regulatory burdens small businesses in my constituency might see reduced and when?

[The Prime Minister]

The formal European Council on the single market, competitiveness and the economy is in March. This was a special European Council to kick-start progress on the single market. I hope that after the March Council we will have a specific list for my hon. Friend.

EU Council

Dan Byles Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I do not agree with that. A lot of these arguments were made when Britain did not join the euro. A number of organisations, media outlets and, indeed, political parties and political leaders said, “If you stay out of the euro, you’ll marginalise Britain and it’ll be bad for our economy.” That was not the case. They were wrong then, and I think they are wrong now.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Most post-treaty analysis has focused on the use of the veto, but can the Prime Minister confirm that the detail of the fiscal union proposed by the rest of the European Union would, quite remarkably, render the Opposition party’s entire economic policy illegal?

[The Prime Minister]

That is a very good point. We know that the leader of the Labour party is committed to joining the euro, if he is Prime Minister for long enough. At the same time, if he supported this treaty—but frankly we have not heard today whether he is for it or against it—and joined this treaty he would make his own policy illegal and he would be fined by the European Commission for the policies that the shadow Chancellor, who I see is now not here either, has signed him up to.

Public Disorder

Dan Byles Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly join my hon. Friend in praising Suffolk and other police forces in East Anglia and Essex who got police officers into our capital. The point I made about the deployment of officers is one of the lessons we have to learn about the ability to surge up numbers quickly when circumstances require it.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that no matter how good a job the police do in arresting people, too many thugs simply do not care if they are caught, because they have no respect for or fear of the criminal justice system? Until we resolve that, we will not be able to resolve the wider problem.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There will be people arrested this time who casually entered a broken-down shop and nicked things, thinking it was somehow okay, who will get an almighty shock when they get a criminal record, and potentially go to jail—quite right too. But my hon. Friend is right to say that there is a hard core who are not frightened enough of the criminal justice system, and we need to make sure that they are.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Dan Byles Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

What I have said very clearly is that the Conservative party did not employ him, have a contract with him or pay him. As I understand it, he did some informal work for Andy Coulson, but the reason why we know that is that we announced it before the House of Commons went into recess—we wanted to get the information out. When we get to the bottom of the work that he did—this is unlike the complete lack of transparency that we sometimes get from the Labour party—we will make the detail available.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Did the Prime Minister hear the recent remarks made by Lord Kinnock suggesting that as a result of the inquiry, politicians should impose what he called “balance” on the media? Does the Prime Minister share my view that that would be dangerous?

[The Prime Minister]

I do. We want a free and vigorous press. Sometimes that is infuriating, but the idea of having “Ofpress” and equal coverage being given to every point of view would kill the vibrancy of the press. If we had to have equal coverage of every Neil Kinnock speech—respecting him as I do—the papers would take a lot longer to read every morning.

Phone Hacking

Dan Byles Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good issue. I do not see why the answer to that should be no. If you own media in this country, then you should be able to be called under oath.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be a mistake if, at the end of this process, we saw the death of good investigative journalism? He has alluded to the investigation into MPs expenses, for example, and it would be wrong if we ended up with such a scandal not coming to light.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I do not want those people in the press who work hard, who are good investigative reporters, who do not break the law, who find good stories and who hold the powerful to account to watch today’s proceedings and think that we are going to strangle the free press in this country. That is not what we should be doing. It is very important that we all say that and that the inquiry bears that at the heart of what it is doing and it is in the terms of reference.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973

Dan Byles Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, which we have discussed several times during statements and questions. We are having a proper review of not just arms exports, but training licences and other relations. Of the 118 single and open licences for Libya, we have revoked all licences that cover equipment of concern. However, I agree with the hon. Lady that there will be lessons to learn from the conflict for the future.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has been pressed to rule out putting any boots on the ground as part of the operation. May I ask him to reassure the House that, in the event of any British pilots being downed on operations over Libya, the UN resolution will not tie our hands and prevent us from putting in a robust search and rescue operation, should one be required to recover our pilots?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, but the UN resolution could not be clearer about no occupying army—it is not about an invasion. People need that reassurance not only in the House but in the country and throughout the Arab world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I join other hon. Members in sending my thoughts and prayers to our servicemen and women who are in operations over Libya and those who will be shortly, and of course, to their families.

As a former soldier, I believe that British soldiers, sailors and airmen should be committed to military action only reluctantly and as a last resort—a point that was eloquently highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) in a very moving speech. When they are so committed, that cannot happen in a half-hearted way. They must have the resources—and, perhaps equally importantly, a mandate and a set of rules of engagement—to allow them to do robustly and properly the job they are asked to do.

I believe that the House is broadly united, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), in believing that in the case of Libya, events had reached a stage where committing our military to enforcing the UN resolution is absolutely the right thing to do. Let us not forget where we were on Thursday afternoon. The momentum was with Gaddafi’s forces, who were advancing on Benghazi, and there was every indication that the city would fall in a matter of hours. Time was pressing. The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) has already read to the House the chilling words that Gaddafi himself read out over the radio about what might happen if the city did fall. Uncharacteristically, the United Nations Security Council not only passed a resolution swiftly but passed a robust one, and that robustness is very welcome. I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on the role that they played in securing that very important resolution.

It is vital that we ensure, at every stage of this operation, that we operate at all times within the legality of that UN mandate, and that we retain the broad support of the wider region. Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), I was concerned by the reports over the weekend that Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, had expressed some concerns about the UN mandate. Thankfully, he has now clarified his position, and the Arab League is firmly behind the action that is taking place. I am not surprised about that, given that its early call for international action was perhaps a key moment in allowing the UN to go forward with the mandate. However, this reflects the delicacy of the situation and the urgent need to include a broader alliance of regional forces in the operation that is taking place.

Like the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), who is not in his place at the moment, I was pleased to hear of the imminent involvement of Qatari assets. I believe that such involvement is essential for the wider legitimacy of the operation, but it demonstrates the need for continuing diplomacy alongside military action and the need for us to be nimble and fleet of foot regarding the diplomatic situation—the shifting sands on which we will be operating. We should not be afraid to pause or freeze military action, if necessary, should we lose the support of the wider region. We must not tip over from doing what we were invited to do into being seen to impose on the region our view of what the solution should be. If that happens, we should maintain our grip very firmly on the big stick while walking a little more softly until we can rebuild the regional coalition.

The right hon. Member for Coventry North East expressed his deep concern following the lessons from Iraq, and he was right to do so. However, the spectre of Iraq should not prevent us from doing what we believe is right and is ultimately in our national interests, as the Prime Minister made clear, provided that we maintain the legal legitimacy and broad regional support. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) is absolutely right when he says that this is just the start of the process and that we do not yet know how it will finish, but if we are to stay the course, we must ensure that we stay within the legal framework and maintain the regional support for what we are doing.

It is with some regret that I will be voting for the motion, because committing military forces to action anywhere in the world is regrettable. It will lead to dead soldiers, if not British, then Libyan; we must not forget that whichever side wins, there are casualties on the other side. I trust, however, that the majority of hon. Members will also vote for the motion, because we need to send a clear message tonight that we are united in this—that we as a House support the United Nations resolution, recognise that this action is both legitimate and necessary, and support our servicemen and women in the difficult and dangerous tasks that lie ahead.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Dan Byles Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman also makes a strong argument and has much greater historical knowledge than I do. I would say only that if the Bill becomes law, it will become a clear part of our constitutional arrangements that the expectation, the desire and the will of the people is that we have fixed-term Parliaments lasting five years. Therefore, should there be an interruption that led to a vote of no confidence in a Government and the Prime Minister came to the sovereign asking for her to prorogue Parliament, it would be clear to the sovereign, who would also receive advice from her advisers, that there was a danger of frustrating the constitution and frustrating the will of the people for us to have elections every five years.

Given that the Prime Minister would have lost a vote of confidence in this House—in the old days that would normally have automatically led to their no longer having a right to govern—I do not think it would be classified as the sovereign “meddling” in politics were she then to say that she would invite alternatives if the Prime Minister could not tell her that he or she could form a stable Government without going to the people in an election. If the Prime Minister could not give her that reassurance, it would be entirely proper for the sovereign—her advisers would tell her this—to see whether the Parliament that had not run its full course did not contain an alternative stable Government who could be formed and for her to invite the relevant leader of any such Government to kiss hands, become Prime Minister and resummon Parliament to see whether they could win a vote of confidence. That is why the fear of the hon. Member for Rhondda is not justified. In fact, a reverse fear is involved.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Is not the very purpose behind the Bill and the cooling-off period after a vote of no confidence precisely to allow that to happen? The expectation would not be that Her Majesty or His Majesty would interfere in the political process. Under the Bill, such a situation would throw the game open to see whether a Government who can command the confidence of this House can be formed. People elect MPs and then, to a certain extent, they expect us to get on and govern; they do not expect us to squabble, throw our toys out of the pram and have another election because it suits us.

[Nick Boles]

My hon. Friend puts it far more succinctly and better than I could. The key point is that there is nothing to stop that process happening just because Parliament is prorogued. We do not stop existing or being able to have conversations with each other, with Her Majesty’s advisers or with senior members of the civil service because Parliament is prorogued. We would still exist, we would still be MPs and we would still be able to go through that process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Byles]

It is a slightly odd idea that we could have a vote of no confidence and that somebody from the governing party might take up the reins. Any party that had a vote of no confidence rather than a leadership challenge to change their leader would be highly irresponsible.

[Nick Boles]

My hon. Friend is right. There were moments in the previous Parliament when we all might have wished that the party in government had taken that route rather than imposing on us the rather long, drawn-out demise that we all witnessed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend—may I call him that? I feel as though we are friends even though we sit on opposite sides. I am always nervous about the customs of this place: I wanted to say thank God; I meant thank God; and frankly the stars have absolutely nothing to do with it. I am happy to be corrected.

Returning to the tidiness of the amendment of the hon. Member for Rhondda, he has not demonstrated, or even provided a shred of evidence to explain why the current point at which Parliament is recalled after an election is a problem or causes any difficulties. We should reject his amendment.

The hon. Gentleman has tabled another amendment to regulate the timetable for elections and he has again made a superficially appealing argument about lining up the different election timetables for different tiers of government, but it will not have escaped the attention of Government Members that he has, as ever, lined up with the longer figure. That betrays the deep belief of the Labour party, of which the hon. Gentleman provides a good example, that what the country needs are more politics, longer election campaigns, more leaflets going through doors and more people knocking on one’s door just when EastEnders is on or when a good game has started.

[Dan Byles]

The House has faced a big problem with fundraising and the increasing cost of democracy. Would not longer election campaigns lead to more expense and a greater requirement for parties to raise funds? We all know that parties get into trouble however they try to raise funds, so is this not the wrong direction to go in?

[Nick Boles]

I agree entirely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but let us remember that the Speaker can issue two types of certificate—under clause 2(2), which relates to confidence motions, and under clause 2(1), in respect of a resolution passed by two thirds of Members—and my amendments deal only with those circumstances. If we legislate for a resolution to be passed by two thirds of Members and for the Speaker to certify certain things about that, it would be a gross oversight not to provide for hon. Members, in so voting in such a Division, to specify a date if they wished to do so, rather than to leave that up to the Prime Minister.

I do not wish to go into the constitutional twilight zone that the hon. Member for Rhondda took us into about some of the wily vagaries of prorogation powers, but if we simply leave it to a Minister, even the Prime Minister, to set a date and make no provision for the House to specify a date, we leave ourselves open to possible uncertainties and, indeed, abuses. I remind the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) that we have served in an Assembly where a Secretary of State had certain powers and obligations for setting election dates. There have been court cases about whether or not the Secretary of State had duly exercised those powers and whether he had chosen not to see things and then said that he had exercised the power to set a date by simply setting the same date that had been suggested. People have used the different devices that the law allowed.

I am simply saying that if we charge the House with the possibility of setting a different election date for its own good reasons—I assume that they would need to be good reasons if the motion was supported by two thirds of Members—we should at least allow the House to specify the date as well if we are to hold to the spirit of the Prime Minister giving up powers.

Like other hon. Members, I have serious reservations about Speaker’s certificates. My amendments would not suspend any of the qualifications that I and many other hon. Members have on that subject—the worries about the implications in terms of courts and so on—but the more that we charge the House with powers and controls in relation to the issue, the more content I would be with the Bill.

[Dan Byles]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important discussion. The entire issue of fixed-term Parliaments, sadly, is in danger of becoming yet another political football to be kicked around the House, as Members seek to manufacture objections to reform, and to posture and grandstand. I fear that the new clause and amendments for the most part would not add to the Bill in any meaningful way. The issue is really very simple. I believe that the Bill will strengthen the power of the House over a key constitutional issue and diminish the Prime Minister’s power.

Before coming to the detail of the new clause and amendments, let us remember exactly what this historic Bill is about. Previously, the Prime Minister had the power to ask for an early Dissolution of Parliament at any time. Historically, that extraordinary degree of power has been used solely to the political advantage of the party in power.

[Mr Charles Walker]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that we have had a fairly settled democracy for the past 350 years? So there are aspects of the system that he can recommend to the House as well.

[Dan Byles]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for alluding to an argument that I have heard time and again, when people suggest, “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it,” but I shall come to the problems with the current situation in a moment. He also alludes to the interesting idea that we have a democratic system that works, so we should not amend or tinker with it. I have heard Opposition Members support that idea before. I have heard it suggested that, somehow, the Bill is undemocratic. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friends, I find that an extraordinary argument. That line of reasoning seems to suggest that the only truly democratic system is the one that has evolved in this country—the one that we currently use. Such reasoning suggests that it is not possible to amend our system without somehow making it less democratic, even though it concentrates power in the Prime Minister’s hands. The Bill will devolve the power to call a general election to the House, which is surely where it belongs.

If one were to follow that line of reasoning to its absurd conclusion, it would suggest that other western nations are somehow less democratic than ours, simply because they have democratic systems different from the one that we enjoy. In the United States Congressmen and women serve a two-year fixed term. The President serves a four-year fixed term. Senators serve six-year fixed terms. Clearly, that does not make the United States less democratic than we are simply because its system is different from ours. In France Members of the National Assembly are elected for five-year terms—the period that the Bill recommends. The President is also elected for a five-year term. The Senate is selected for a six-year term.

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, but Members of the Assemblée Nationale are elected for terms of up to five years, not fixed terms.

[Dan Byles]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for correcting me. That was not my understanding, but I will bow to his superior knowledge. The French model has an interesting lesson to teach us about leaving the power to dissolve Parliament with the Executive, as opposed to the system that we are now considering. The President of France has the power to force Dissolution early, but that is not supposed to be the norm; it is supposed to be used only in an emergency. It has been used only twice in an emergency, in 1962 and 1968, but it has been used three times for political advantage—in 1981, 1988 and 1997—thus clearly demonstrating that if we leave such a power in the hands of the Executive, it will inevitably be used for party political advantage.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The Bill still seems to allow the Executive to do that, because they can force a vote of no confidence in themselves. Therefore, what we are achieving is simply changing the rules by which an early election can be called, not making any fundamental change to the constitution.

[Dan Byles]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s typically pithy and interesting contribution. The point has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and while my hon. Friend is technically correct, I find it hard to imagine that a Government who wished to call an early general election for their own political advantage would engineer a vote of no confidence that they would then lose on the Floor of the House, because that would be a disastrous start to a general election campaign.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

When I first heard the suggestion, I thought that the electorate might consider that such a Government had behaved irresponsibly and therefore should not receive its support, but if the vote was a simple device for calling an early election that took only a few hours, the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has a point, in that the mechanism would just be another way of calling an early election, and the position would not be very different from where we are now.

[Dan Byles]

I will have to agree to disagree with hon. Members about this, but I do not think that a Government going into a general election would want to see headlines on the front pages of The Sun and other tabloids screaming, “Government falls after losing confidence vote in the House”.

[Mr Charles Walker]

Surely any legislation could be avoided if Prime Ministers were to say at the start of their term whether they intended to run a five-year Parliament. If they backed out of that arrangement with the electorate after two and a half years, they would be judged accordingly, so why on earth do we need legislation?

[Dan Byles]

My hon. Friend makes a truly innovative suggestion.

[Thomas Docherty]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dan Byles]

I shall be delighted to find out whether the hon. Gentleman can answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).

[Thomas Docherty]

At the risk of rushing to the hon. Gentleman’s rescue, I suspect that Labour Members tried that approach in the previous Parliament, and I do not recall it ending particularly well for the former Prime Minister.

[Dan Byles]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his clever and well-reasoned argument.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Returning to the question of party political advantage, why does the hon. Gentleman think that the Government have chosen to specify a term of five years, rather than four, in the Bill?

[Dan Byles]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman raises that question, because I would like to address that issue, which is one of the “straw man” arguments that opponents of the Bill regularly cite. Some who oppose the Bill argue against the whole principle of fixed-term Parliaments, while others claim to support that principle, but tackle the issue of whether the term should be five years or four.

What should we make of the term set out in the Bill? I think that I am safe in saying that the term length is a key sticking point for Labour Members who accept the principle of fixed-term Parliaments yet still cannot bring themselves to support the Bill. Many of them hang their hat on the fact that five-year, rather than four-year, terms are proposed.

If we are to consider that point in detail, it is important that we understand where we are and how we came to be here. At present the maximum length of a Parliament is five years—let us make no bones about that—and I do not recall any recent cries of anguish from Labour Members that the historical five-year Parliament is wrong. Indeed, that maximum limit was established under the Parliament Act 1911, so Labour Members have had a long time to express their opposition to five-year Parliaments. The 1911 Act reduced the maximum length of a Parliament to five years from seven years by amending the Septennial Act 1715.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

May I remind my hon. Friend that the reduction from seven to five years took place because the House of Lords was no longer able to block legislation, and it was therefore thought right that things should be referred to the electorate within a reasonable time? In 1911 Members thought that that period was five years, and what they thought in 1911 is a jolly good thing to think in 2011.

[Dan Byles]

As ever, I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his point. He and I believe that the wisdom of our forefathers should not be lightly dismissed.

[Mr Walker]

If my hon. Friend believes that the wisdom of our forefathers should not be easily dismissed, why is he supporting the Bill?

[Dan Byles]

I do not understand my hon. Friend’s point at all. Our forefathers decided that five years was a reasonable maximum length for a Parliament.

[Chris Bryant]

But when our forefathers reached that view, they pointed out that although the maximum length of a Parliament would be five years, in practice the length would nearly always be four years.

[Dan Byles]

The hon. Gentleman has advanced that argument before, but I am aware that another interpretation is that if a Parliament lasts five years, only about four years’ work gets done in practice, because Governments find it harder to get their business through in the final year as people are looking ahead to the next general election: in effect, the election campaign starts.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

As the House knows, three of the past five Parliaments have run for five years, so it is not unreasonable to use five years as a guide.

[Dan Byles]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point.

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) likes to cite a figure of 3.7 years as the average length of a Parliament since 1945—he does not need to jump up and do so again now—but we need to tackle that statistic head on, because it is quite disingenuous. The statistic includes the three occasions on which a Parliament lasted for less than two years. No one would suggest that Parliaments of less than two years should be the norm—they occur in unusual circumstances—so it is misleading to include them in statistics to show the average length of a Parliament since 1945.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Is not the great advantage of our present system that if a Government do not get a particularly big majority—such as in 1964 and February 1974—the arrangements are sufficiently flexible to allow us to hold another general election fairly soon afterwards so that one party or another can get a reasonable majority?

[Dan Byles]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting argument, because he seems to suggest that any Government of the day should have such a strong majority that they can bash their legislation through. I believe that Labour Members referred to that arrangement as an elective dictatorship when they were on the wrong side of such figures in the 1980s. In this day and age, if a Government need to be a bit more consensual and cleverer about getting their business through the House, it is considered to be a good thing. Do we really want to say that whenever a Government do not have a huge thumping majority we should have another election?

[Dr McCrea]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Bill was born out of real conviction, and has nothing to do with political convenience designed to enable the Government to keep going over five years while we get out of the economic mess that we are in?

[Dan Byles]

I genuinely do not believe that that is the reason.

My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) pointed out that three of the past five Parliaments lasted five years, and I was developing a point about the average length of post-1945 Parliaments. If the three failed Parliaments lasting less than two years are stripped out, the average length of a Parliament since 1945 has been more than four years. Since 1974 the lengths have been even greater, so there is a clear trend that Parliaments are lasting longer.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman’s logic, but does he accept that, with the exception of the Parliament between 1987 and 1992, every Parliament since the 1950s that has lasted longer than four years has ended with the defeat of the governing party at a general election? Frankly, if the Prime Ministers in those Parliaments could have gone on longer they would have done, just to avoid the electorate.

[Dan Byles]

If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that Parliaments that last for five years are more likely to end with the defeat of the Government, he should be wholeheartedly embracing the coalition’s plans to make this Parliament last for five years.

If there is something so constitutionally or democratically wrong with five-year Parliaments, why on earth did we have to endure the previous Government from 2005 until 2010? If five-year Parliaments are wrong in principle, as several Labour Members seem to suggest, why did not the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)—I apologise if I have not pronounced the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency correctly, but as I have heard him speak in the House so rarely, I am not sure how to pronounce it—do the entire country a favour and call an election in 2009? We then could have started clearing up the mess of the worst financial deficit that this country has faced since the second world war a year earlier.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Obviously there is a debate about whether the figure should be four years or five—although nobody has proposed a fixed-term Parliament of 3.7 years. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while there is not necessarily a massive difference between four years and five years, given the total and absolute mess that the country is in, having a term long enough to enable us to get out of that mess is a good idea?

[Dan Byles]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. One problem sometimes cited in relation to a democratic system such as ours is the tendency for Governments to take the short-term approach to fixing problems. If five years became the norm, that would help to create slightly more stable government, because Governments could look to the longer term when considering some of the difficult decisions that they might have to make, and not always be worried that they were only a few years from a general election.

It seems that five-year Parliaments are not a problem for Labour Members when it is their party that is clinging to power in the dying days of a Government, as was the case in 2009 and 2010. True to form, their principles changed the moment they found themselves in opposition. Now, sadly, they stand as obstacles to reform.

May I conclude the point about whether the term should be four years or five, and move on with my speech?

[Mr Charles Walker]

Is my hon. Friend not concerned about the prorogation of Parliament? Will he address that matter when he has finished his opening remarks?

[Dan Byles]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am extremely concerned about that point, and very eager to get on to the part of my speech in which I shall address it. However, I want to conclude the point, which I was pulled on to by interventions, about whether the term should be fixed at four years or five. I turn again to the conclusions and recommendations in the report on the Bill produced by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which has already been quoted today by Labour Members. Recommendation 5 clearly states:

“Precedent gives no clear answer as to whether Parliaments should last four years or five.”

In recommendation 6 the report acknowledges the views expressed by some witnesses that four years might be better than five. Nevertheless, the recommendation clearly states that that

“is an important point, but not one that we would wish to see obstruct the passage of the Bill through the House.”

That is important, and I hope that Labour Members will take note of it.

Before moving on to the subject of the amendments before the House, I would like briefly to—

[Thomas Docherty]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. My understanding of the procedures of the House is that Members need to refer directly to the proposals on the amendment paper, not rehash or rehearse a debate that took place previously, and at some length.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

First, it is for me to decide whether a Member is straying out of line. I would say to Mr Byles that he has to keep in order on new clause 4. He has drifted a little, but he keeps coming back to the matter of four years or five. I am sure that he has taken those remarks on board, and that we can continue.

[Dan Byles]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have almost come to the end of my scene-setting remarks and will get into considerably more detail on the amendments very shortly. Before I do, I want to refer to confidence votes and thresholds, which have already been mentioned this afternoon, including by Labour Members.

Although we are moving to a system of fixed-term Parliaments, it would clearly be unusual and wrong to put in place a system that did not allow for early elections, in one of two scenarios: if the confidence of the House could not be held by a party leader, or if there were an emergency of some sort, or another exceptional circumstance that required an early election in the national interest. I believe that the Bill as it stands, unamended—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should be relating his remarks to new clause 4 and the amendments grouped with it. We do not need to drift back to other subjects; we have gone beyond them. I remind him that we need to stick to the subject in hand.

[Dan Byles]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I apologise. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I say to those on the two Front Benches, can we please continue?

[Dan Byles]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I shall move on to new clause 4, which sets out new rules for the Prorogation—I have as much trouble as the hon. Member for Rhondda with that word—of Parliament. It would repeal the Prorogation Act 1867, which provides the power for Her Majesty to issue a proclamation for the Prorogation of Parliament. I think I got that right.

As the House is aware, Prorogation marks the end of a parliamentary Session and is the formal name given to the period between the end of one Session of Parliament and the state opening of Parliament, which begins the next Session. The parliamentary Session may also be prorogued before Parliament is dissolved and a general election called.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the term “prorogation” is derived from the Roman concept of prorogatio. In the constitution of ancient Rome, prorogatio was the extension of a commander’s imperium beyond the one-year term of his magistracy. Prorogatio developed as a legal procedure in response to Roman expansionism and militarisation.

In the context of the Westminster system, Prorogation or Dissolution of Parliament on the final day of the Session originally, according to the House of Lords Library, comprised four principal elements. First, the Speaker made a speech mainly concerned with the Subsidy Bill, which he had brought up from the Commons. This was followed by a speech from the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper replying to the points made by the Speaker and expressing thanks for the Subsidy Bill. Royal Assent was then given to the Bills passed by both Houses. Finally, the Lord Chancellor, in obedience to the sovereign’s instructions, either prorogued or dissolved Parliament. The sovereign was customarily present on those occasions, and from the 17th century onwards, usually made the speech before Prorogation or Dissolution.

Hon. Members will, I am sure, be fascinated to learn from the Library’s excellent note that

“In the early nineteenth century the prorogation was still accompanied with considerable ceremony. Thus in 1815 the Prince Regent rode in the State Coach with a cavalry escort through St James’s Park to the Palace of Westminster, and on his arrival was announced with a salute of cannon.”

[Mr Walker]

A lot of Labour Members are muttering at the history lesson that my hon. Friend is giving us, but is he not demonstrating how important it is in this matter to set the scene in an historical context, bearing in mind the fact that we are overturning 350 years of constitutional precedent?

[Dan Byles]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is exactly the point that I would have made.

The Bill is truly historic. That fact has been mentioned by numerous Members on both sides of the House, and to consider it in isolation—what it means to us now, rather than its place within the sweep of the history of our nation—would be wrong.

[Chris Bryant]

I agree that historical precedent is important, but I think the last time the monarch was involved directly in a speech made before Prorogation was 1851 or 1854, so we are going back some time. Since then there has been quite a transformation of the Prorogation system.

[Dan Byles]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It may interest the House to know that in the 1830s King William IV was going to come in person to prorogue Parliament, because that would bring all business to a stop and the Government did not like the business that was going on. I believe that, in the end, that turned out not to be necessary.

[Dan Byles]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Again he demonstrates why it is so important to maintain a thorough understanding of history if we are to understand exactly what our position in this place is in the context—

[Mr Walker]

Is there not a danger that at times we in this place give the impression of having the clear thinking of the totally uninformed?

[Dan Byles]

It pains me wholeheartedly to agree with my hon. Friend that that is absolutely the case.

[Chris Bryant]

In 1831 the row about Dissolution and Prorogation, which was all about the proposed Great Reform Act, led to a phenomenal row in this House between the Conservatives and the Whig Government, precisely on the basis of whose decision it should be that Prorogation should proceed.

[Dan Byles]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for joining our discussion of the history pertaining to Prorogation. I am glad that he has recognised that understanding the history of how we have got to where we are today is relevant to the discussion at hand. However, as the House is clearly not in the mood to discuss history today, and as I am aware that time is pressing, I want to move on and make a final point about amendment 9 before bringing my remarks to a conclusion.

Clause 3 states:

“Once Parliament dissolves, Her Majesty may issue the proclamation summoning the new Parliament which may…

(a) appoint the day for the first meeting of the new Parliament”.

Amendment 9 would add:

“within 15 working days of the polling day”.

The issue has already been discussed, but I am concerned that the amendment remains a little woolly. I question its purpose. What does a working day mean? Does that take into account religious holidays? There has already been a discussion about whether “working day” or “days” should be used. If that is an issue that the Opposition are concerned about, the term “working days” remains vague. Are bank holidays in other parts of the United Kingdom to be taken into account?

Is it not difficult to add “within 15 working days” in such specific terms, when “working days” could mean something entirely different in another part of the United Kingdom? In particular, why is Labour adamant about 15 working days? Is there any rationale or logic behind this number? Why not 14 days or 16 days? If we believe in evidence-based policy making in this place—[Interruption.] I detect some chuckling. Perhaps that is a dangerous thought. Evidence is not always welcome in this place. I have discovered that in previous debates. Perhaps when he sums up, the hon. Member for Rhondda will explain to us why 15 days is the magic number, not 14 or 16.

The House has indulged me enough. Time is pressing and there may be others who wish to speak. I thank the House for its attention.

[Thomas Docherty]

I shall keep my remarks brief as I understand that the Prime Minister might be rushing back to make a statement to the House about the commercialisation of Downing street following the revelations from the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) earlier this evening. I understand that the Liberal Democrats have a large campaign debt to pay off from Oldham East and Saddleworth.

May I gently tease colleagues on the Government Benches about the importance of referring to the United Kingdom when speaking about our nation state? I am sure all colleagues are aware that we are not just England or Britain; we are the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) helpfully referred to an earlier edition of “Erskine May” with reference to the shouting of the phrase “Shame!” from a sedentary position. It might help the House if I clarify that that applied up to the 19th edition of “Erskine May”. Since then, I am advised, the term has been removed from “Erskine May” and is therefore, I imagine, legitimate.

Addressing new clause 4 and the associated amendments which, as “Erskine May” says, is the purpose of the debate, I shall tackle head-on the question whether the Opposition support the principle of a fixed-term Parliament. It is well known that we did not oppose Second Reading because we support the principle of a fixed-term Parliament. Our specific objections have been not just to the length—four or five years—but to some of the technical issues, which is why my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda and for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and others have tabled a series of tidying-up amendments, as we would describe them, although I understand that not every hon. Member supports that principle.

Public Services (Social Enterprise and Social Value) Bill

Dan Byles Excerpts

Friday 19th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank my hon. Friend for that informative intervention. I, too, represent a constituency that has many shining examples of big society organisations. From my perch on the investment committee at the Social Investment Business, I have been able to see many different social enterprises across the land that are flourishing—from Salford to Stratford—and that would be helped by being brought to the attention of public service procurers in other areas. By outlining the need for a national strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington has introduced a very helpful Bill.

As we all know, there is allegedly no money left, so it will probably not be as easy as it was to help the social enterprise sector. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles would agree that even had her party been elected to government it would have found it difficult to provide similar amounts for funds such as the Futurebuilders fund as they did before. Therefore, we need to emphasis the role that foundations, philanthropists or people who would like to invest in an ethical individual savings account could play by providing a portfolio of funding to help to draw on the experience that Government money has developed over the years, as well as the low default rate and good rate of return.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

What I find most interesting about my hon. Friend’s speech is that she is making the clear point that social enterprise is not the same as charity, and that it can be a financially and economically sustainable model.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Indeed. I do not want to rule out the possibility that charities may want to use loan finance from time to time; obviously, they often do. My point is that, in this sector, we do not need to rely solely on help from Government procurement and funding. I want to put on record that if it is to continue to experience rapid growth, there is also a role for other providers of capital. We have had the fascinating example of the social impact bond. I believe that contract involved a charity, rather than a social enterprise, which was looking at a way of reducing reoffending rates. The rate of return that investors could earn on the social impact bond was a function of how successful the charity was in delivering on that contract. That is another creative and innovative way to find more money to help the social enterprise sector to grow.

With the Minister in his place on the Front Bench, I would like to take the opportunity to refer to a policy that the Conservative party was considering in opposition—the role of the social enterprise zone as a means of the Government helping social enterprises in particular areas to attract money from private investors through additional tax breaks.

This is potentially a very powerful and excellent Bill, and I am delighted to urge all my colleagues and all Opposition Members to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

I certainly think we should allow charitable enterprises to tender for contracts and deliver services, rather than see this as a way for for-profit businesses to service government.

[Dan Byles]

I am not entirely sure that I agree with my hon. Friend that there is such a clear distinction between for-profit businesses and organisations involved in social responsibility. Many private sector companies take their corporate social responsibility very seriously, and a number of private sector for-profit companies in my constituency are heavily involved with community groups, charities and social enterprise, because they feel it is the right thing to do for their corporate image and for the wider community.

[Mr Gyimah]

I do not suggest for a second that no private for-profit businesses have a social objective—a lot of for-profit companies do take that responsibility seriously—but I see the Bill as a way of encouraging organisations whose main purpose is to deliver services that could be delivered by the state for the community. To take the argument to an extreme, in my view it would be unusual—

Oral Answers to Questions

Dan Byles Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Having already announced one of the Chancellor’s nuggets from his speech, it would be testing our friendship if I announced another. I gave my word about finding a settlement for the PMS. I know how important this is in Northern Ireland. I know that people lost money and that there was frustration that Ministers would stand at the Dispatch Box and say that no one had lost money during the financial crash—they did in the PMS. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied by what the Chancellor has to say in a moment.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Last week, I joined a parliamentary delegation to China, where I was able to pick up a copy of Chairman Mao’s “Little Red Book”. Is the Prime Minister interested to learn that Chairman Mao said:

“Thrift should be the guiding principle in our government expenditure.”?

If Mao Tse-tung supports coalition policy, does that not mean that the Labour party is in a minority of one?

[The Prime Minister]

I am glad that my hon. Friend has been travelling and seeing the world. [Interruption.]