Individual Voter Registration
David Heath Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I, too, welcome the opportunity to have today’s debate and, generally, the tone of the debate. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David)—I think: he was a bit recidivist in places—for, generally speaking, the way they approached the issue.
I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, for his comments. As he set out, what has happened in this case is, to some extent, the model of how we ought to approach legislation, where the Government put forward their proposals, ask for detailed consideration, ask experts and those in the House with a particular interest to make their comments, and then respond, positively wherever possible, to those suggestions. That seems to me to be the iterative process that we have followed in this instance. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman was supported in that view by other members of his Committee, such as the hon. Members for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) and for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore).
Let me deal with one issue that the hon. Member for Nottingham North raised. The Government will very soon issue a detailed response to the points raised by his Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who has responsibility for constitutional reform, has agreed to look again at whether there is any way of improving the proposal for the 2014 canvass, noting that the Electoral Commission has suggested moving the 2013 canvass to early 2014. Again, that is a recommendation that he will consider carefully.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East, asked how the effectiveness of data matching will be assessed. That I absolutely agree that the information should be brought forward for the benefit of the House when it considers the proposals in detail, which will include not only the Government’s assessment, but the Electoral Commission’s assessment, which it is preparing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) made one of the most important points in this debate when he said that the choice is not between integrity and completeness. That is absolutely right: we need both. Indeed, that is where the Government have continually placed the emphasis in this matter. It is right that we should move to a system of individual registration. Our current system is outdated and far too vulnerable to electoral fraud—the point raised by the hon. Members for Hendon (Mr Offord), for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) and for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw).
The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) talked about international election observation missions. I have been on many such missions in other countries—indeed, I have led them—and have consistently found it embarrassing to point out that we have none of the safeguards that we insist upon for other countries to keep our system free from fraud. There is a genuine threat to what we have in this country. I am therefore grateful that there is, or appears to be, general support for the move to individual registration. I accept that concerns have been raised about the detail of some of the proposals—many hon. Members have touched on those points—but the encouraging tone of this debate and the general agreement on the value of individual electoral registration are to be welcomed.
The message obviously did not quite get through to some colleagues on the Opposition Benches—whether their text messaging went awry, I do not know. Clearly the hon. Members for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane)––whose speech I have heard many times now––for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) do not entirely accept that principle. So be it. They are entitled to disagree with the manifesto on which they stood, if they wish.
Let me address some of the other points that were raised. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett) said that some councils do a much better job of electoral registration than others. Perhaps we ought to look more at why some councils fail in that task, whereas others do not. He thinks that there are insufficient checks on personation, which that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is looking at.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion talked about the position in areas with lots of students and people in houses in multiple occupation. It is interesting that the research shows that the biggest determinant of incompleteness in the register is actually length of residence. The completeness rate is only 26% among those who have been resident for less than a year, compared with 91% among those who have lived in their properties for over five years. That is where we need to concentrate our efforts.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) talked about second home owners. The important thing in this instance is that electoral registration officers should actually apply the law. Very often the problem is not that the law is incomplete, but that people do not apply the law as it stands.
One point that has been raised repeatedly is about the civic duty to vote. Let us be absolutely clear: the Government believe that there is a civic duty to vote, and there is no change—[Interruption.] I do apologise: to register, rather. Let us be clear: the Government believe that there is a civic duty to register—in fact, there is a civic duty to vote as well, but the point today is about the civic duty to register. It is because we have listened to the points that have been made that, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary repeated, we are thinking again about the so-called opt-out provision, which the hon. Member for Sheffield Central described as back-pedalling. It is not back-pedalling to put forward a proposition, listen to the response and then adapt proposals to meet those responses. We will never have a grown-up Parliament if we cannot do that without people criticising the process.
The hon. Member for Scunthorpe is normally very moderate in the way he presents his case to the House, but I am afraid that today he was a little edgy on this issue. He simultaneously said that we should learn from Northern Ireland, where there is no canvass, and then talked about the crucial importance of the canvass—a slight inconsistency. Of course we must learn the lessons from Northern Ireland, because there are important lessons to be learned. Indeed, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) raised one of them in an intervention, when he talked about the canvass immediately after an election.
The overall position of right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate is that they want individual electoral registration, but not at the expense of the completeness of the register. We understand that, which is why we are determined to do everything we can not only to maintain the register’s completeness, but to go further and ensure that we reach those parts that have not been reached before. That is why my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is working overtime to look at ways to address that issue and ensure that councils that are perhaps not as assiduous or competent in reaching the electors in their areas are encouraged to do so.
We must be careful when we talk about this issue not only to avoid plucking figures from the air or assuming that we can quote any old figure and it will be believed, but so as not to be as patronising as I felt some contributions today were to some of our electorate, by assuming that young people simply will not register if their mums do not tell them to do so. That has not my experience when talking to young people in our schools and colleges, and it has not been the experience of the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean in Northern Ireland, where this system is already in place and where there is a higher level of registration among young people attaining the age at which they can register than there is in Great Britain.
I am optimistic that we can get this right. We must continue to listen, and to bring forward our proposals. I hope that the legislation will go ahead and be successfully implemented, and that we will then continue to monitor it to see whether it is effective. That is what the hon. Member for Nottingham North was talking about, and that is the way in which the process ought to work, particularly in areas as crucial as voter registration and the electoral system in this country. I ask hon. Members to reject the motion before us today, but I ask them, as my hon. Friend the Minister did, to do so in the right spirit, and to take a constructive view of how we can move forward together to get this right.
Question put.
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
David Heath Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
I was referring to the use of Prorogation at the end of a parliamentary Session. I believe that that should be in the hands of this House, not in the hands of the Government. Sorry, in fact I was referring to the case where a Government might choose to use Prorogation expressly to prevent an alternative Government from being formed. The Deputy Leader of the House might reassert what the Parliamentary Secretary said earlier—that the monarch would simply sack the Prime Minister in such circumstances—but I do not believe that the monarch has such a power. In fact, since statute law would have expressly stated that that power was still there, I cannot see how that could possibly happen. Alternatively, the Deputy Leader of the House might say that the monarch would refuse to grant Prorogation. That would set the monarch directly against the Prime Minister, and in such a contest there would be a real constitutional crisis, which some would want to take to the courts because the provisions would by then have been placed in statute law.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
The hon. Gentleman is exploring an interesting argument, but there is currently nothing to prevent a Prime Minister from requesting Prorogation to avoid a vote of no confidence if he believes that the monarch will accede to his request. Given that that has never happened, why does the hon. Gentleman think that such a constitutional anomaly is more likely to arise following the passage of the Bill than under the present arrangements?
Chris Bryant
The Deputy Leader of the House has made a fair point. However, because we are now putting in statute significant elements of the way in which the British constitution might work in the future, rather than, of necessity, what exists at present, we are creating a labyrinth which Prime Ministers may well wish to navigate. I shall say more about that shortly, once I have given way to the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), who is talking to a Whip at the moment.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Gentleman highlights a crucial element, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle mentioned earlier—the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that was an Adjournment debate and was not even a formal resolution. That shows exactly the problem with the Bill as it is worded. It accepts the principle that there is no requirement for a formal vote of no confidence, but it does not accept those nuances that are part of the argument that, even if a Government win but do not meet a threshold that they have set beforehand, they have in effect fallen.
I can think of another example from our devolved Administrations. It was clear in 2001 that the then First Minister of Scotland, Henry McLeish, had lost the confidence of the Scottish Parliament and of his party. On the morning of the no-confidence debate he resigned as First Minister. That did not lead to the proroguing of the Scottish Parliament. It was an unprecedented event in the short history of the Scottish Parliament, but it survived. I hope that the Minister will, even at this late stage, take on board the fact that, as far as Oppositions ever are, we are seeking to be helpful to the Government, and certainly to the House, by providing some technical amendments to tidy up the Bill.
The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) referred to France and the United States. I was not aware that he was such a Francophile, but perhaps that is the result of the new coalition spirit. My understanding—I am happy to be corrected—is that the French President has the power to dismiss the Prime Minister summarily, but I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is not advocating that we adopt the same position in this country.
As the Minister knows, I am something of a bore on the subject of the United States’ constitution. When the founding fathers of the United States were considering the peculiarities of their arrangements in the constitutional convention, one thing they desperately tried to avoid was over-lengthy terms of office. That is why they have elections every two years in their states. Votes for Congress, the Senate and the Presidency are staggered. Although I accept that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire is trying gallantly to defend the Minister’s position, I fear that it is not a straightforward example to apply in this case. I have spoken in favour of the amendments, but I am conscious that the Prime Minister will be rushing to the House and that the Minister wishes to reply, so I will end my comments.
Mr Heath
I do not think that the House has had as elegant and extensive a debate on Prorogation since the legislation was passed in 1867. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for opening the debate and to the hon. Members for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), for Foyle (Mark Durkan), for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) and for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) for their contributions. I must say, however, that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife blotted his escutcheon as a political anorak by being four editions of “Erskine May” off the pace. To quote the 19th edition when we are now up to the 23rd is really beyond the pale.
Thomas Docherty
For the benefit of the Deputy Leader of the House and of the Official Report, my point was that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) referred to the fact that up until the 19th edition of “Erskine May” the word “shame” was not allowed. My point was that we have moved on, and I have the 23rd edition in my hand.
Mr Heath
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for restoring my faith in his credentials, although he has destroyed those of the hon. Member for Rhondda.
The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford put his finger on what was wrong with the debate once we had prised him from his views on reasonably priced white wine, because he made the point, which I think was backed up by the hon. Member for Foyle, who mentioned an Urquhart-like Prime Minister, that many of the rather apocalyptic views of what an evil denizen of No. 10 might do seem to be founded on fancy, rather than on experience or expectation. We have been asked repeatedly to assume that every convention that applies has applied and will apply, whether the Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, or not. All those conventions would be summarily set aside.
It has been suggested that there would be confidence motions that no Member of the House, not even Mr Speaker, would recognise as confidence motions. It has been suggested that Prime Ministers who lose a vote of confidence might refuse to resign and remain in office despite the fact that they had lost the vote, or that if once they resign they might somehow give posthumous advice from beyond the political grave to Her Majesty to prorogue and therefore frustrate the intentions of the House and of the legislation. It is then suggested that Her Majesty, in a way that has never been the experience of any Member of this House or our predecessors, would be so forgetful of her constitutional duty that she would not ask another leader capable of commanding the confidence of the House to form a Government and end any temporary Prorogation.
I believe that those are fanciful concerns. I accept that they are theoretically possible, but I ask the House to consider whether any of those things have happened. Almost all of them are included in the conventions that cover our political system and our current constitutional arrangements and will persist after the passage of the Bill. I am indebted to the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which someone casually looking at our debate might imagine had been critical of the provisions in this part of the Bill, but far from it. It examined the matter in some detail, and the witnesses were unanimous in their view. Paragraph 147 states:
“Professor Bradley agreed that such a possibility, while theoretically possible, ‘would be very unsatisfactory and British politics would have sunk to a new low.’”
Professor Bogdanor was mentioned earlier, and the confidences of the tutorials between him and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) might or might not have been breached, but he suggested that the situation could reasonably
“be left to the discretion of a ‘wise constitutional monarch’”,
which is indeed what we have,
“who would not prorogue at the request of a Prime Minister who no longer had the confidence of the House.”
The Committee, having heard the evidence rather than the conjecture, concluded:
“We agree that the risk of abuse of the power of prorogation is very small. We therefore conclude that Her Majesty’s power to prorogue Parliament should remain.”
So, there was very clear advice from the noble members of that Lords Committee, and I am sure that it will colour their consideration of the matter.
We have heard from lots of people who profess to know what happened in Canada, but, just in case there are lingering concerns about the extraordinary situation of the Prorogation that apparently saved the Canadian Government, I note that the Lords Committee took evidence from an academic who probably knows a little more than any of us in this House about the Canadian political system. Professor Henry Milner, from l’université de Montréal, stated in his evidence:
“The Canadian case was unique because prorogation saved the government, which it normally should not. ... [The] circumstances [were] so unusual that you could not imagine them. I would have to give you each of the steps in the Canadian case, all of which were unlikely and all of which fitted together. Frankly, I would not worry about it.”
That is probably a safe conclusion for this House.
On the proposed changes before us, I shall deal, first, with new clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda, and the consequential amendments 2, 3 and 4, which would give the House a new and exclusive power to prorogue Parliament. Most contributors to the debate were clear about this, but we need to make a clear distinction between Dissolution and Prorogation, because they are very different things, and the Government believe it important that the Bill provides the House with the power to decide when there should be a Dissolution of Parliament.
It is legitimate to give the House control over early Dissolution, because that will take place only in circumstances where the Government of the day have lost the confidence of the House and can therefore no longer lead the country effectively, or where a two-thirds majority of elected MPs has passed a motion calling for an early election. Those are matters directly concerned with the choice of Government and the election of Members, and it is right that this elected House should have primacy.
Prorogation, however, is a different matter. Hon. Members will know that it is a mechanism to bring to an end a Session of Parliament. It determines, subject to the carry-over procedure, when Bills must have completed their passage through both Houses so that they become law. That relates to the point that several hon. Members made, whereby, if we prorogue while Bills are still in process, they are lost. Sometimes, an incoming Government will wish that; sometimes, they will not, particularly if they are of a similar political complexion to the previous Administration.
The hon. Gentleman’s new clause places no obligation to consult or agree with the other place on the timing or length of Prorogation, even though it affects that House equally. The new clause would therefore give this House a controlling hand over the conduct of business in the other place by providing us with the power to dictate when the other House must have completed its business. That would be a significant departure from the current situation in the wash-up, and some might view it as an unwelcome extension of this House’s powers.
As I said in earlier debates, through this Bill the Government seek to make only those changes to the constitution necessary to facilitate the principle of fixed-term Parliaments. The proposed new clause seems to fall wide of that intention.
Thomas Docherty
I have listened attentively to the Minister’s remarks. Notwithstanding his reluctance to support our reasoned amendment, will he outline where he has got to, therefore, in discussions with the devolved Administrations about how the elections will work, and outline when we will see proposed legislation? Clearly, there is a significant knock-on effect for devolved elections.
Mr Heath
I would do so, but that would impinge on the following group of amendments, and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), will be able to respond to that point during the debate about them. It would be unwise for me to leap ahead, so, although I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s point, I hope that he accepts my response.
I shall address other issues that have been raised in relation to the Prime Minister’s existing power to prorogue Parliament, because, as I stressed at the beginning of my response and stress again, many of the arguments are based on the theoretical mischief that, somehow, a Prime Minister might prorogue Parliament for his or her own purposes, without accepting the fact that they can do so equally today. They can do so, as I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Rhondda, to prevent a vote of confidence that they feel likely to lose. So, with the Bill we are not strengthening the hand of the Prime Minister; far from it. We are taking away one critical element, but Prorogation will remain exactly as it is.
The conventions of this House are sufficiently strong. For instance, there is no obligation in law for the business managers to find time to debate an Opposition motion of no confidence, but the strong convention is that time will always be found for that purpose, because it is a convention that has worked well over the years. I do not believe that there is any reason why it should not work well in the future. I cannot accept that the artificial process that has been described is a real danger.
Let us consider the circumstances. There are two basic scenarios during the 14-day period in the Bill. In the first, political factors mean that a no-confidence motion passes, and there is no obvious alternative Government, so the Prime Minister who has lost the confidence of the House remains in place to fight the election. There would be no need, or indeed point, for the Prime Minister to prorogue the House. The alternative is that the Prime Minister resigns after the no-confidence motion and Her Majesty appoints a new Prime Minister. Even if the new Prime Minister took office and found the House prorogued, he or she would, under the current arrangements, ask the Queen to recall Parliament. Although I acknowledge the principle behind new clause 4 and amendments 2, 3 and 4, I hope that I have demonstrated that it would be unwise and unnecessary to make them.
On amendment 9, clause 3(4) specifically preserves Her Majesty’s power to set the first day for the meeting of a new Parliament by royal proclamation. As it stands, the date of the first meeting of a new Parliament is set by proclamation and is usually agreed with the House authorities and the palace. The date is conventionally set out in the proclamation that dissolves the old Parliament. The Bill retains as much as possible of that approach by providing for the Queen to issue the proclamation summoning the new Parliament once the old Parliament has dissolved, rather than after the new Parliament has been elected. Following the last election, a date was chosen that allowed sufficient time for the large number of new Members to be inducted. It is important that such flexibility is preserved.
The purpose of amendment 9 appears to be to require Her Majesty to set a date for the first meeting of a Parliament that is within 15 working days of the general election. Again, I have a quibble over drafting, because it is not entirely clear whether the intention behind the amendment is that Her Majesty should issue the proclamation within 15 working days, or whether the first meeting of Parliament should take place within 15 working days. The hon. Member for Rhondda made it clear that his intention was the latter, but that is not clear in the drafting of the amendment. Our primary purpose in the Bill has been to establish fixed terms and set out the procedures for initiating an early election. We have made only the necessary consequential changes to the Queen’s powers. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to press amendment 9.
Amendments 14 and 15, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle, suggest that if the House votes for an early Dissolution under clause 2, it should be able to choose the date of the ensuing general election. The Bill provides that if there is to be an early general election, the date will be set by Her Majesty the Queen in a royal proclamation on the advice of the Prime Minister. That is to ensure that an appropriate date can be found, for instance so that the poll can be held on a Thursday, as has become standard practice.
Although amendment 14 provides that the date of an early general election would be set out in the Speaker’s certificate, that would be the case only if the House of Commons had specified such a date in the Dissolution motion. That is a genuine concern with the amendment because a two-thirds majority is required to agree that there should be an early Dissolution. Under the amendment, two thirds of the House would also have to agree to the date of the election. It is quite possible that Members would agree to the one proposition and not the other. Alternative dates and amendments could therefore be tabled. That would muddy the water of what should be a clear-cut process. That is a concern about the operation of the Bill, if it is enacted, which perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not considered.
Mark Durkan
Amendment 14 would make it optional, not obligatory, that a date be specified. If the House votes a year or more in advance of the election, why should the date not be fixed then, rather than it being left up to the Prime Minister? Under the Bill, the House, by a two-thirds majority, would be handing a power back to the Prime Minister that the Prime Minister says he wants to give up.
Mr Heath
I do not dismiss the hon. Gentleman’s arguments. I understand what he is saying. However, in purely practical terms, it is difficult for the House to receive advice from any quarter on what would be an appropriate date. The House as a whole would find it difficult to take the sort of advice that the Prime Minister, as an individual, could easily assemble. In the politically charged atmosphere of a vote of no confidence, it is hard to understand—[Interruption.] Sorry, not a vote of no confidence. I could see what the hon. Member for Foyle was thinking. In the consideration of an early election, it would be even more difficult to set.
There are always technical issues in establishing the most appropriate date for a general election, and the considerations of all parts of the United Kingdom must be taken into account. I know that the hon. Gentleman has had mixed experiences, but he knows that it is the experience of the devolved Administrations that it is useful in the circumstances that have been suggested for an individual to have this responsibility. Giving it to the House as a whole would be technically difficult, without a significant advance in the arrangements being achieved.
I move on to amendment 8, which the hon. Member for Rhondda said “makes things tidy”, in the words of his valet. I am sure that it would, and I have some sympathy with his argument. The amendment would lengthen the election timetable by requiring Parliament to dissolve 25 working days before polling day, rather than 17. The Government recognise that remaking the election timetable is a complex matter that we should consider. However, it cannot be done simply by edict and without the background work.
The Electoral Commission supports the idea, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He did not make a great deal of that in his speech, but I know that he knows the background material. The commission has suggested that an extension to the electoral timetable would support participation by overseas and service voters, and better support the effective administration of elections. We agree that it is an important issue, and the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated to the commission that there is merit in exploring a change to the timetable. However, as the commission has pointed out, it would require a thorough review to ensure that any change is consistent with the arrangements for elections across the piece.
A host of practical issues and consequential complexities must be considered. We will have to form a balanced judgment on where particular milestones would best fall within an extended election timetable. For example, there might be competing views about the deadline for nominations, and we would have to work to find the most effective compromise. Another crucial milestone is the deadline for registering to vote, which, although not part of the timetable structure, is inextricable from it. That illustrates that such changes to the timetable cannot be made in isolation. As part of the process, we would need to consider the current deadlines for postal and proxy vote applications. Additionally, different elections across the UK run to different timetables and moving to 25 days in Westminster would not, of itself, generate consistency.
As I have said, the Government agree that this is an important issue and we will set out our proposals on the timetable in due course. We have held initial discussions with the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators to identify points to address. It should be noted that the Bill already greatly enhances the ability of administrators and candidates to plan ahead, because we will know when general elections will happen, usually at least five years in advance. The various people involved in running elections will be able to factor that into their thinking and organisation. Even if the provisions for an early election were engaged, the Bill sets out clearly the steps from the Dissolution motion or no-confidence motion to the Dissolution of Parliament, and those steps will be conducted in the public eye. There will be no more snap elections, and I believe that electoral administrators and candidates can be glad about that.
The final reason for asking the hon. Member for Rhondda not to pursue amendment 8, despite its merit and the fact that the issue needs to be considered, is that the Bill is not the right place to amend the election timetable. The Bill is about fixing the date of the poll, not wholesale electoral reform, as we have said repeatedly. Governments are constantly urged by everyone to have focused legislation that deals with specific objects. This is just such a piece of focused legislation and I do not want to cloud the simple but constitutionally significant issue of fixing parliamentary terms with other electoral issues.
Having said that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who have tabled amendments will not press them to a vote, so that we can continue with the debate on the final group of amendments.
Chris Bryant
I note that the Prime Minister’s drinks party has clearly ended, because the whole Conservative party has gathered in the Chamber. We heard earlier that the Prime Minister had been serving reasonably priced drinks, so I hope that all hon. Members paid for them.
Sadiq Khan
That Bill is being discussed in the other place. It starts again at 3.30 tomorrow.
The hon. Lady should be interested in my next point, however, because the Bill before us also ties the hands of the Conservative party to the Liberal Democrats. With this Bill, their respective fates and identities become inseparable. Make no mistake: the Bill is not for the good of the country; it is for the good of the Ministers on the Treasury Bench. What compounds that outrageous piece of attempted constitutional fixing is the fact they are trying to ram it through at breakneck speed. That urgency is because Back Benchers from both coalition parties are having second thoughts about the issue, so party managers need to get them super-glued together quickly, with no way out.
Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have raised a number of concerns about its content and its scrutiny. I have no problem with the Conservative party being converts to fixed-term Parliaments.
Sadiq Khan
No, I will not. Not to you.
The Liberal Democrats’ policy was for four-year fixed-term Parliaments, but unfortunately the coalition has hijacked a sensible and progressive idea, amended it for its own means and tried to rush through legislation preventing a proper, wide-ranging debate on an important —[Hon. Members: “Give way!”] I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has been in charge of timetabling the Bill, and if he had wanted to speak, he should have allowed more time for debate.
Once again, we will rely on the other place to inject a sense of fairness—
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
David Heath Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Cox
I had not intended to speak, and I shall be extremely brief. Most of my remarks will be addressed to the Minister in the hope that he can provide the clarification in substance to the questions asked by my hon. Friends and Opposition Members, which I should like to reinforce.
My first question is precisely that which my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) just asked. Why not add the proposed words? If clause 2(3) is intended to be an instruction to the courts that a certificate shall not be challenged, on the face of it there could be no real reason, unless the Minister has thought of something that others have not thought of or been advised otherwise, why the injunction of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), which is more expressive, explicit and detailed, should not be added. Will the Minister elucidate the purpose of stopping short at the word “purposes” and not going on to be as explicit as possible?
I ask that because historically, ouster clauses in administrative law have not been conspicuously successful. The courts have not paid very much attention to interpreting their duty to examine such issues, and often even where the ouster clause has been passed. [Interruption.] I see from the sedentary reaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath)—the Deputy Leader of the House—that the reason may be that such provisions are so pointless that there is no point in going any further. If that is the reason, it would be helpful if the Government made that clear, so that Members could consider that. I have to tell him that I do not consider the provision to be pointless—I would not imagine that the Government would do anything that was pointless in drafting the legislation.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
indicated assent.
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
David Heath Excerpts(13 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
Let me try to help the right hon. Gentleman, because I do not believe that he was here on the first day of Committee when we debated this matter, which is in clause 1. As we are now on clause 2, I do not want him to find himself out of order.
Mr Straw
I am sure that that is a matter for the Chair, but I was simply trying to provide a comprehensive answer to the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke).
If we have a fixed-term Parliament, then of course the power of the Prime Minister to call an election is very significantly modified. I am concerned about the rights of this House. This House works by passing legislation, and all other matters, on the basis of votes by a simple majority. If we had a written constitution, which I am not against, we could have a separate debate about whether there should be some means or other of entrenching certain basic provisions. We are doing that in practice for some, but not others, by way of referendum, and for some, but not others, by way of convention and cross-party consensus. Meanwhile, however, regarding how this place works and good governance, we operate on the basis of a simple majority.
What we should be doing in the Bill is laying down a fixed term—I would prefer it to be four years, but it is going to be five—and then accepting the reality that circumstances could arise in which a Government of the day lost the confidence of the House. There is no alternative to that. No new Prime Minister could suddenly pop up and regain the confidence of the House. That being the case, there has to be an election, as happened after four and a half years of the ’74 to ’79 Government. It seems to me that those should be the only circumstances that should trigger an early election. I do not want there to be provision whereby, by some method or another, whether it is by a majority of a half, 55% or 67.5%, a package of Members can be got together in order to hold a general election. Nor do I think that those provisions would ever be used, because they are so complicated. There is no point in our passing legislation that has no significant purpose.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
David Heath Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
Yes—[Interruption.] The Deputy Leader of the House says that he has that all the time. He obviously likes being “kebabbed” in that way—or perhaps that is spatchcocked, I am not sure.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
That is more spatchcocked.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman agrees.
The point is that our amendment is so drafted because, otherwise, a Member might be able to attend half the count in relation to the referendum on the alternative vote, but not the other half in relation to his constituency. We have tabled the amendment so that any Member of Parliament would be able to attend a referendum count. I would hope that most returning officers would not feel troubled by that, but some have explicitly said that the Member of Parliament is not, as of right, allowed to attend.
We have tabled one further amendment that is of significance and not just consequential on others. Amendment (j) relates to new schedule 2 and is about the priority in counting election papers.
Mr Jenkin
I can put them right. As Chairman of that Committee, although I do not act as Chairman in this capacity, I will be in the Aye Lobby myself on new clause 7. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne said, it represents a very modest maintenance of the status quo. That is what this is about—checking an advance or a further incursion of the Executive into the House of Commons. It is a holding position, while my Committee completes its work.
Mr Heath
I think this has been an interesting and illuminating debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) for tabling his new clause and for the way in which he spoke to it. I am also particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), the Chairman of the Public Administration Select Committee, not only for contributing to this evening’s debate but for his Committee’s work—and that of its predecessor, which, as he rightly said, published the first report.
We have heard from a number of Members of all parties, including from the Father of the House. The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) often gets criticised—or, perhaps, slightly cheesed—for his lapidary style, but I know from my experience over many years that he is well worth listening to on many issues. Although I do not agree with everything he says—I do not think he would expect me to—I always find listening to him a useful exercise.
The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is not in his place at the moment, intervened earlier and sought to persuade the Committee that the Republic of Ireland is the epitome of prosperity, which I am not sure is an argument that holds great water. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who is also not in her place, was moved to tell us why during the last Parliament she asked to be a Minister no longer.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said repeatedly that the Government of whom he was a part were too slow to take on these issues. Too right they were! They never took on these issues one single bit; there was never the slightest attempt to reduce the size of government or to relax the grip of the Executive on Parliament. It is only since the present Government have been elected that we have been able to deal with some of these issues. He also said, in passing, that he was suspicious that Parliamentary Private Secretaries were not acquainted with the ministerial code. He is quite wrong on that; of course they are—they are given the ministerial code to sign on taking up their positions. That is as it should be. The hon. Gentleman will have to look at the websites himself.
Chris Bryant
I am sorry, but no list of Parliamentary Private Secretaries is currently available on a website or anywhere else. Unless the hon. Gentleman can provide the address of a website that features the information, it is not available.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
If my hon. Friend looks at not just individual websites for Members of Parliament but the parliamentary website, he will see that it includes the information that a Member of Parliament is a PPS. That information was added to my name within about four weeks of my appointment.
Mr Heath
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting the Committee straight on that.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) supported the new clause. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) made the important point that the oversupply of Ministers was not best addressed by their being put in the House of Lords. I entirely agree. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex expressed a contrary view, saying that he rather liked having Ministers in the House of Lords, but I am not sure that I agree with him.
Mr Charles Walker
I do not like the idea of lots of Ministers being in the House of Lords, but the fact is that there are currently eight unpaid Ministers there. If the hon. Gentleman does not want them to be there, why on earth are the Government putting them there?
Mr Heath
I will let the hon. Gentleman into a secret: I am not the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister who makes appointments. I am simply saying that I do not think we would improve the present position by putting more Ministers in the House of Lords. In the last Parliament, members of the Cabinet—Secretaries of State in charge of Departments—were in the House of Lords, and we had no way of holding them to account. That was an affront to this elected House, and I am pleased that we have put it right.
Let me explain why I cannot support the new clause, although I have a degree of sympathy with the view of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).
Mr Heath
I said that it was undesirable, and I believe that it is undesirable. I said that in the last Parliament. I called for Secretaries of State in another place to be brought before this House for questioning, because I think it is wrong for Members of the House of Commons not to have access to those who lead Departments. That remains my position, and I am not going to change it.
Philip Davies
I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman’s argument. Is he saying that the new clause means that any Secretary of State could not be in the House of Commons, and would have to be in the House of Lords? I see nothing in the new clause that would force a Secretary of State to be in the House of Lords.
Mr Heath
I am not suggesting that that would be the case. I am picking up on points made during the debate, which I think is part of the job of a Minister responding to a debate. The hon. Member for Foyle expressed the hope that a reduction in the number of Ministers in the House of Commons would not result in an increase in the number of Ministers in the House of Lords. I suggested that I agreed with his view. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex does not agree with it. So be it. That is the nature of debate.
Mr Mark Field
The Deputy Leader of the House has made it clear that he wishes to respond to the contributions made in the debate. I think that one of the most important contributions, with which I entirely concur, came from the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). She considered it highly regrettable that a Bill of such constitutional importance was being rushed through so quickly and so early in the Parliament, in a way that gave the public—certainly those who are interested in these matters—the impression that it was being introduced simply to keep in place the current arrangements introduced by the current coalition. She suggested that it was solely a result of the electoral arithmetic that obtained in May 2010, rather than having been introduced in the long-term interests of Parliament for decades and, indeed, centuries ahead.
Mr Heath
That is a Second Reading point, but it is not a point that I agree with or accept in any way. We have already had extensive debate on the timing of the Bill; I believe we have given that subject a substantial amount of debating time. The most important point is that it is necessary to make rapid progress on the Bill if we are to have in good order both the referendum and the boundary changes suggested in the Bill.
Chris Bryant
Whether or not it is germane is obviously for the Chair, not the hon. Gentleman, to decide, but I am grateful that he has given way.
I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House. He has suggested that Parliamentary Private Secretaries are listed on each of the websites—[Interruption.] Government Members, and in particular Ministers, groan, but that is perhaps because they want to see the extension of patronage rather than the extent of patronage to be known to the whole of the House. The truth of the matter is that I have looked at the websites of four Departments and there is absolutely no evidence in any of them of who the departmental PPSs are.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Heath
No, not for the moment because I have just said that I want to set out some of the reasons I have difficulties with the new clause.
One point worried me slightly, and I have to say that the hon. Member for Broxbourne and I may have an honest disagreement about it. He appeared to be advocating a complete separation of powers.
Mr Heath
But it was suggested in the speech moving the new clause. The hon. Member for Broxbourne seemed to give the clear impression that he personally would favour a separation of powers, meaning that there would not be this country’s current parliamentary democratic system where we have Ministers drawn from this elected House. Rather, he would prefer Ministers to be drawn from the ranks of those outside the House, which is much more akin to a presidential democracy. [Interruption.] I may be misrepresenting the hon. Gentleman, and if so I apologise. However, if that is his view—and it is a perfectly respectable view—it is not one that I share. [Interruption.] I see other Members nodding because it is their view, and I understand that to be the case.
My second point is that this is not simply an issue about Ministers. It is an issue about patronage and the extent of the patronage of the Prime Minister and Government of the day. That is what we need to address, rather than the narrower issue of Ministers in this House.
My next point is that there is not a simple arithmetical relationship between the number of Members of the House and the number of Ministers: to suggest that there is is to reduce the argument and to take it beyond what is reasonable. Ministerial responsibilities must reflect what the Prime Minister and Government of the day feel they need in order to do their work effectively. There is a relationship between the number of Ministers in this House and the number of others in the House whose positions are created by patronage and both the perception and the reality of the independence of this legislature. That is a perfectly proper comment to make, but there is not, I suggest, a simple arithmetical relationship.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting, therefore, that the Prime Minister of a future Labour or Conservative Government, or indeed the Prime Minister of what we have at the moment, could extend the power of patronage to have as many Ministers as they wish in order to control the political process?
Mr Heath
As I shall go on to describe, what the previous Government did when they reached the buffers of the current restrictions was simply to create all sorts of fantastical posts that were not described as “Ministers” but were, nevertheless, an extension of patronage. We know what the Labour party did when in government and I think we can do better.
Philip Davies
The Minister seems to be saying that these things should be judged on the ministerial work load, as opposed to numbers. I do not know whether this is the case for him and his constituency, but the work load of MPs has increased rapidly in recent years. The Government are proposing to reduce the number of MPs by 50, so this Bill clearly has nothing to do with work load, yet he is giving the distinct impression that this is a simple case of turkeys not wanting to vote for Christmas.
Mr Heath
Without rehearsing arguments from other parts of the Bill—we must not do that—I can say that the interesting thing is that the proposal to reduce the number of Members and equalise constituencies seeks to make some Members who represent very many fewer constituents than others have the same work load as those of us who represent larger constituencies; we comprise about a third of the House.
Mr Charles Walker
The Deputy Leader of the House questioned whether it is wise to put an arithmetical limit on the number of Ministers, but an arithmetical limit of 95 is already in place. Is he suggesting that we remove that and just have a free-for-all in this place?
Mr Heath
No, I am not. I am suggesting that a slightly more complicated relationship is involved than perhaps the simple solution suggests; I have already mentioned one of the factors, which is that this solution does not take into account the position of the House of Lords and the reform of that House in which we are engaged.
Mark Durkan
May I take up the point that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) raised about the Deputy Leader of the House’s comment that the House should not become concerned with setting an arithmetical limit and seeking an arithmetical formula? The Bill says that there should be 600 MPs and 600 only—not one more and not one less. No flexibility is to be left to the boundary commissions, to Parliament or to anyone else, and constituencies are to be formulated every five years, again on the basis of a tyranny of arithmetic, so how can the Deputy Leader of the House tell us that within this regime of the new arithmetic and the new politics there cannot be arithmetical guarantees on the fixed number of Ministers in this House?
Mr Heath
Again, the hon. Gentleman seeks to draw me back to debates that we have had on other parts of the Bill. However, I repeat that I do not think that there is a simple arithmetical relationship between the number of Ministers in the Government and the number of Members in this House, other than the view, which is my view and that of right hon. and hon. Friends, that we need to reduce the scope of Government patronage. That is something in which we are already engaged.
Daniel Kawczynski
My hon. Friend made a very important point a few moments ago about the staggering number of special advisers that the previous Labour Administration had. I believe that they even had one for timber products and for rain forests, as well as having special envoys for Cyprus and for Sri Lanka. It is slightly hypocritical of the Labour party to accuse us of patronage of this kind when there was so much in their Government.
Mr Heath
No.
Let me go on to the next point, which is the timing of what is being suggested. This is not the hoary old chestnut that used to be described by the former Member for Cambridge, Mr David Howarth, as the doctrine of unripe time—everything was always for the best possible purposes, but the time was never ripe for it to happen. I am not saying that. I am simply saying that various elements of our proposals for reform of the constitutional arrangements and for the politics of this country are moving forward in various pieces of legislation and at various times. By the end of this Parliament, they will be in place, but this is not the right time for this measure.
Let me try to make some progress. The Government are committed—as the fairer Members who have contributed to the debate have already recognised—to passing power from the Executive to Parliament. The hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Backbench Business Committee created by this Government, will, I hope, recognise that that is the case—
Mr Heath
I apologise; I thought that the hon. Gentleman was. I apologise to him and to the House. I hope that it will not prove to be a resigning matter that I mistook him for a member of the Backbench Business Committee. Knowing him to be a fair-minded man I know that he will attest to the fact that this House has already moved the control of much more parliamentary time to Back-Bench Members through the Committee. We have also seen the election of Select Committee Members and Chairs, to which we have already drawn attention in this debate.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also become the first Prime Minister in history to give up the power to call a general election at the time of his choosing. I think it is clear that the Government are not looking to extend their own influence, but believe on principle that power should be dispersed. Indeed, we will bring forward legislation very soon to disperse more power to local communities and local authorities, enabling them to do their job more effectively.
I have difficulty in accepting that there is a need to put this new clause into this Bill at this time. It is now October of 2010—[Hon. Members: “Well done!”] It is good to know that Opposition Members are engaged in serious constitutional debate. There are four and a half years until the provisions of this Bill will take effect—[Hon. Members: “No.”] There are four and a half years until the provisions of the Bill on the boundary reviews and the reduction in the size of this House take effect. It does not result in an immediate change to the size of this House. We are legislating at speed to allow sufficient time for boundary reviews to be conducted nationally on the basis of a smaller House, but when we have time to reflect, we should use that time.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
Surely new clause 7 would also come into effect in four and a half years, at exactly the same time as the other aspects that the Minister has mentioned.
Mr Heath
Yes, it would, but my point is that new clause 7 does not perfectly encapsulate the purpose that the hon. Gentleman, the Government and I might share of making government fit for purpose in that new Parliament. Given that we do not have to pass this new clause as part of the Bill, it seems sensible to take our time, listen to representations and people’s views, and see whether we can come up with something better.
We have heard very clearly that the issue at stake is the size of the Government’s payroll vote. The proposition we have heard is that the Bill will give the Executive undue numerical dominance in the House and that we must therefore legislate now to reduce the number of Ministers here. It is a numerical fact that if the Bill becomes law, and unless we legislate to the contrary at some stage, the Government elected in 2015 will be entitled to make Ministers out of a higher proportion of the Members of the House. They will not be compelled to do so, but they will be entitled to, and recent Governments have tended to appoint as many Ministers as they can, or very close to that number. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I have acknowledged before that this issue deserves consideration, and it would not take a great detective to find the number of occasions on which I have said precisely that. On the face of it, it is not desirable that the payroll vote should be expanded as a proportion of the House’s membership. We have said that we will consider how to address this issue and we will do so.
We are told that Governments legislate too much, and the new clause concerns an issue that might be better resolved without legislation. Governments are capable of reducing the number of Ministers without being compelled to do so through legislation. More importantly, perhaps, the payroll vote is often taken to include Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who are not covered by current legislation and who would not be covered by the new clause. It is only by self-denying ordinance that those numbers are limited. Governments have clearly been capable of self-restraint, and that self-restraint would still be necessary if the new clause were accepted. As I have said, under the previous Government we had not only Ministers and PPSs, but tsars, envoys, special representatives, Regional Ministers and assistants to Regional Ministers. A lot of them have been removed but they were all elements of patronage within the House. If it is patronage we are seeking to address, then we have to address all those appointments, not just the ministerial ranks.
Let me repeat a point that was made earlier. Legislation would not cover the number of Opposition Front Benchers, which is also relevant if the concern is that there are too few independent voices from the Back Benches. I accept the principle of legislation on ministerial numbers as a back-stop, but surely the number of Ministers must be a function of need, which is not necessarily related to the number of MPs. When previous statutes increased the number of Ministers in the House, they were unrelated to any changes in the number of MPs: there has never been a clear link or a set ratio. At the moment, there can be one Minister for every 6.842 Members of Parliament or thereabouts. The new clause would enshrine that ratio in law in perpetuity. If it were to become law, the Government could appoint as Ministers no more than 87.692307 Members of the Chamber. That would be the relationship. I merely make the point that I do not believe that a simple arithmetic relationship is necessarily the right one to address.
We should not forget the purpose of having a ministerial presence in the House: we need sufficient Ministers to attend to the business in the House, to make statements, to answer questions, to introduce Bills and to contribute to debates. The House rightly expects the highest standards of accountability from its Ministers and we strive to meet those standards. Indeed, it is often complained that Ministers are too rarely seen when the House discusses issues for which they do not have direct responsibility. That reflects the reality that we demand a lot of our Ministers in this country, both to govern and to legislate.
The question of how many Ministers should sit in the House of Commons is bound up with other questions—for example, considering the number of Ministers in the House of Lords. As the Committee is aware, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is chairing a Committee on reform of the House of Lords. The Committee comprises Members from all three major political parties, as well as from both Houses—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Rhondda asks, “What’s that got to do with it?” as though reform of the House of Lords—the thing for which we have been arguing for 100 years—has nothing to do with the constitutional arrangements of this country.
The cross-party Committee is discussing all issues pertinent to reform, including size and composition, and whether the second Chamber is wholly or mainly elected. It will also discuss the position of Ministers in the reformed Second Chamber. Currently, there are far fewer Ministers in the House of Lords than in the Commons, but we will need to think carefully about how the distribution of Ministers may be affected by any changes to the size of the second Chamber, or by the introduction of elected Members.
The Committee is charged with producing a draft Bill early next year, which will then be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government hope that will be carried out by a Joint Committee of both Houses. It is possible that arguments may then be made for either a greater or smaller ministerial presence in the second Chamber. We should wait to hear the views of the Committee.
There is also an argument that the limit on Ministers in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 is arcane in other respects. For example, it makes no provision for Ministers who might fill the role on a part-time basis or a job share. It is expressed in terms of numbers of individuals rather than full-time equivalents. That should perhaps be part of any consideration.
For all those reasons, although I welcome the debate, the Government are not minded to accept the new clause. We shall reflect on the arguments made today and set out plans once we have achieved some consensus on the composition of the second Chamber, including the number of Ministers there. If it still appears—[Interruption.] I think it is important for the House to hear this. If it still appears necessary, there will be plenty of time at that stage to legislate before 2015. I urge the hon. Member for Broxbourne to withdraw the new clause, on the basis that we shall very carefully consider the arguments he has made.
Mr Walker
I say to new colleagues who were not here in 2009 that it was the most awful experience. We were led up the garden path by a powerful Executive and had our legs cut from underneath us. We vowed that we would never, ever let that happen again. We vowed that we would take control of this place back from the Executive.
I wish I was being braver in my new clause. All I am asking is that when the House of Commons reduces by a mere 50, we reduce the number of Ministers by a mere eight, yet in this age of new politics those on the Front Bench cannot even give us that. Colleagues, this is the night when the new politics will be born, or it will die. Please support new clause 7 tonight, to give new politics some meaning, because it will be driven by Back Benchers—it can never be driven from the Front Bench.
I call for a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
David Heath Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joan Ruddock
I am not at all. I am talking about the equal worth of people who are eligible to be registered but are not, and those who are registered. That is the difference between our position and the Government’s. They simply wish to take a number and say that every constituency must reach that number of electors, otherwise it cannot exist. That is illogical and ludicrous, and worse still, they plan to do nothing to attempt to equalise the numbers, even on their own terms.
I conclude by repeating that as Members of Parliament we serve all our constituents and all our constituencies. I am sure that we all often say, “Well, frankly, if you’re not voting, don’t come complaining to me.” But we are not suggesting that only voters count, are we? On the technical issue of registration, that is not good enough for me, and it should not be good enough for the majority of hon. Members.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I am sure the whole Committee is delighted that we have now reached part 2 of the Bill, which is based on the very simple concept that votes across the country should have equal value, wherever someone is. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) can provide a simple example of why that is important. His constituency, according to the records, has 51,706 electors. My constituency of Somerton and Frome has 81,566 electors. I have 30,000 more electors than him. Why should my electors’ votes have less value than those of his electors? That is the question he needs to answer.
Chris Bryant
I have already made it absolutely clear in the debate that I believe that there should be greater equalisation of the constituencies. The Deputy Leader of the House says that there is one sole principle, so why, by his own analysis, is he creating two rotten boroughs in Scotland?
Mr Heath
If the hon. Gentleman accepts the principle that votes should be equalised, he disguised it well in his very long contribution. We had a wide debate on this group of amendments. At one point it looked like a clause stand part debate, and at another like a Bill stand part debate, given the amount of material we considered. Most Members were relatively continent, but then we had the hon. Gentleman. When I suggested that we have an extra hour for this debate this evening because of the earlier statement, I did not appreciate that it would be taken up almost entirely by him.
On previous groups of amendments, it seemed that the hon. Gentleman had not properly read the Bill, but on this group of amendments, it seemed that he had not read his own proposals. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that he was deliberately trying to avoid speaking to his amendments. Members listening to the debate might have assumed that his proposal was to slow down the process set out in the Bill. They might have thought that in amendment 127, to which he never referred, he was proposing to extend the period for the Boundary Commission to do its job, but no, that was not his proposition. If anyone cares to look at the amendment paper, they will see that amendment 127 suggests that far from the Boundary Commission doing its job in three years, as proposed in the Bill, it should do it in one year, which is entirely contrary to everything that he said in his contribution. He persuaded the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), who is not in the Chamber, that he had a sensible suggestion, but he did not persuade me.
If hon. Members listened to the hon. Member for Rhondda, they might have assumed that it would be difficult for boundary commissions to do their job within the resources and time available, but they might not realise that each boundary commission gave evidence to the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform and rebutted that suggestion in terms, saying that they had the resources and the capability, and that there was no problem whatever.
Owen Smith
I listened to the Boundary Commission’s evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. The Deputy Leader of the House is right that the commission said that it would be able to do its work within the time frame. Clearly, it felt able to say that only because it needs to pay attention only to the politics by numbers—the arithmetic formula this Government are imposing to gerrymander and rig the next election. The commission has no need to consider the geographical, historical or cultural identities and ties that have created our constituencies. That is why it can do its work in the time given.
Mr Heath
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has completely demolished whatever case the hon. Member for Rhondda had for saying that the Boundary Commission’s resources were inadequate for its job.
Hon. Members who listened to the debate might also have felt that the hon. Member for Rhondda had tabled a second amendment of which they knew little. They certainly would not have heard that he wished to make the implementation of equal votes across the constituencies of the UK dependent on the referendum on the powers of the National Assembly for Wales. But his amendment would provide that nothing could change until after that referendum. Our difficulty with that is that these provisions have nothing to do with the devolved powers of the National Assembly for Wales: they are about putting the electors of Wales on the same basis as the electors of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is a question of fairness.
Ian Lucas
Does the Parliamentary Secretary recognise that there are four different constitutional settlements within the United Kingdom and that those issues are central to the question of the constitutional arrangements relating to this House? Why is he presenting a Bill that is constitutionally illiterate?
Mr Heath
I know of no constitutional principle that says that voters in Wales should have twice the value of voters in Somerset. I do not understand that as a constitutional concept, and it is not one that I support. Why should Wales continue to be over-represented? Why should it be placed in that constitutional setting in eternity? Perhaps he can tell us.
Ian Lucas
The Parliamentary Secretary should recognise that the relationship between Wales and England is an historic one that depends closely on the managed constitutional relations between the two countries. The reality is that Wales is a small country that has a long and strong relationship with England, a much larger country. Wales has a distinct identity, and when he was on the Opposition Benches he recognised that through devolution. Why is he now jettisoning the distinct identity of Wales and treating the people of Wales in this way?
Mr Heath
There we have the paucity of the argument for the defence. This is not about the historic and cultural value of the principality of Wales. I am a great fan of Wales and I always have been. It has a very important part to play in the United Kingdom, but I return to my point that I see no reason why electors in Wales should have more of a say in this, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, than electors in any other part of the country. That is the principle before us today.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I think that we are going wide of the mark and the Deputy Leader of the House is being dragged into areas where I would not expect him to be led. I know that he knows better and I will let him continue with his speech.
Mr Heath
I will of course be led by you, Mr Hoyle, on what it is appropriate to deal with on this group of amendments, although I will take great pleasure in coming back to that argument tomorrow when we debate the proposed constituencies.
Many hon. Members have concentrated on registration, and it is an extraordinarily important issue. I yield to no one in my wish to see registration dealt with much more effectively. Indeed, it was one of my persistent criticisms of the 13 years of the Labour Government that they did so little to ensure that the registration of electors was much improved. That is one of the many failures of the previous Government. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who said that this issue should transcend party politics and our views on the outcome of elections. It surely should be a principle that every single eligible elector should be on the register and that those who are not eligible should not be on the register.
Those are the two sides of the coin, as far as electoral registration is concerned. That is why I am so pleased to have heard what the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) said the other day about the extra measures that the Government are taking to ensure that registration is carried out more effectively across the country. We can do more. I am taken by the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, which I have heard expressed before, that we should have a democracy day. That is something we can build on. Perhaps hon. Members could work with the local authorities in their area and make better registration a reality.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
David Heath Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
Then why is the hon. Gentleman not presenting those amendments tonight? That would be the honest, decent and sensible thing to do. Instead, he is proposing a timorous beastie of a Bill—something that, in his honest heart, he knows he cannot possibly defend to his voters on the basis of his party’s manifesto.
Let me raise a few problems that I see with the proposal of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion. First, there are complexities relating to how the amendment would work with regard to the spending limits set both in the Bill and in other legislation affecting referendums. That is not least because the legislation, as it stands, presumes that there will be a yes-no answer. In other words, it presumes that there will be two sides to the argument, rather than three, four or—as there might be in this case—five. Secondly, the amendment makes the assumption that one should arrive at the decision by use of AV; that is laid out in new clause 3. That gives rise to a problem. Finally, there is the problem that although the hon. Lady has presented some options, she has not presented all the options that might be available, as the starred amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) makes clear.
I believe that it is not time for this timorous beastie of a reform Bill, which was cobbled together not so much to bring about proper reform in the country as to keep people in government. It has not been properly consulted on, properly thought through, or given the proper time to allow it to be successful. [Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons is sitting there on the Front Bench. He is now using arguments that I used, in which I was not very confident, when I sat on the Government Benches. It is about time he stopped using the argument about hypocrisy and brass neck when he is the one, despite the fact that we cannot see the difference between his shoulders and his head, with the largest brass neck of all in the Chamber.
Let us not hear any more about new politics from the Government. This is a shoddy little Bill, not a braveheart root and branch reform—a Bill built on narrow party advantage cobbled between the two Ministers. Nasty, incongruous deals have been pushed through by tough whipping, as we have seen this afternoon—everything that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) used to condemn when he sat on the Opposition Benches. The only reason there were not any smoke-filled rooms for Ministers to sit in to cobble together their deals is that we voted for the legislation to ensure that people’s health improved in this country. He did not.