Political and Constitutional Reform Committee

David Heath Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

I beg to move,

That the following new Standing Order be made, until the end of the current Parliament:–

(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, to consider political and constitutional reform.

(2) The committee shall consist of eleven members.

(3) The committee shall have power–

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time; and

(b) to appoint specialist advisers to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee’s order of reference.

(4) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.

(5) The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report to the committee from time to time.

(6) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the evidence taken before the sub-committee.

[Mr Speaker]

With this we shall discuss the following motions on: Select Committees (Election and Allocation of Chairs)—

(1) That Standing Order No. 122B (Election of select committee chairs) be amended by inserting, after line 6:

‘(aa) the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee;’

(2) That the Order of 26 May relating to Select Committees (Allocation of Chairs) be amended by inserting at the appropriate place in the Table:

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

This is a fairly straightforward matter, but I know that nothing is totally straightforward at this time in the evening and with a full Chamber, so I shall take a little time to explain what the motions will do.

Motion 3 will establish a Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, which reflects the new portfolio of the Deputy Prime Minister. Motion 4 will provide for the Chair of the Committee—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This noise is not fair to the Deputy Leader of the House, who is trying to explain these important matters. There are far too many private conversations taking place in the Chamber, which I am sure will now cease.

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker.

Motion 4 will provide for the Chair of the Committee to be elected from among the Labour Members of the House in accordance with the distribution of Select Committee Chairs that you indicated at the beginning of the Parliament, Mr Speaker. Motions 5 and 6 will provide for the Chair of the Select Committee to be paid.

The Government have committed to establishing the Committee as quickly as possible and with cross-party support, to ensure that the House is able to scrutinise the work of the Deputy Prime Minister. I stress that that scrutiny will be in addition to the Deputy Prime Minister’s regular questions sessions in this house. It is our intention, if the House so agrees, that the election of the Chair of the Committee will take place on Wednesday, alongside the election of all other Chairs of Select Committees, to ensure that the Committee can start work as soon as possible.

I do not wish to anticipate the debate or any individual Member’s contribution, but I shall pick up one point in advance. I think that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) suggested that a joint Committee of both Houses might be set up. Perhaps it will be helpful if I say from the outset that the Government do not believe that a joint Committee is the right way forward. First, no other Minister would be scrutinised by a Committee of both Houses. Secondly, the House of Lords Constitution Committee will continue, as its remit states, to

“examine the constitutional implication of all public Bills coming before the House; and to keep under review the operation of the constitution.”

I will be interested to hear Members’ comments, to which I shall respond. However, that is sufficient at this stage to introduce the motions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

First, may I say how gratifying it is that we so often seem to have a full House late in the evenings? That is, perhaps, a sign of the new Parliament’s commitment. I also must say that I am basking in the approbation of the hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Christchurch (Mr Chope). That is an unlikely position for a Deputy Leader of the House to find himself or herself in. The hon. Member for Christchurch regretted slightly that this debate was not in prime time, but what could be primer time than 10.49 pm for this House? It is the perfect opportunity to debate this matter.

Let me try to respond to the questions that have been put. One of the key issues for the hon. Members for Wellingborough and for Christchurch was how this Committee relates to other Select Committees of the House, and whether there is any overlap or crossover. Let us first be clear that it could not have been set up last week, because before last Wednesday there had not been the written ministerial statement setting out the new ministerial responsibilities and machinery of government changes that mean that the Deputy Prime Minister has areas of responsibility not covered by other Ministers of the Crown. Until that had happened, we were therefore unable to put the matter before the House in terms of Select Committees. That is an important point to make.

The second point is that as soon as that had happened, those areas of responsibility ceased to be the responsibility of, for instance, the Ministry of Justice, so they were then outwith the responsibility of the Select Committee on Justice. Therefore, if this House is properly to scrutinise those areas, it is absolutely essential that a Select Committee be formed for that purpose.

I turn to the third element. Several references were made, particularly by the hon. Member for Christchurch, to the “Office of the Deputy Prime Minister”. Let us be absolutely clear: my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has an office, but it is within the Cabinet Office. It is clear that this Select Committee is being set up to look at the specific political responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister, not the rest of the Cabinet Office responsibilities, which remain the province of the Public Administration Committee. I hope that once this Committee is set up and begins its work—provided that the House agrees to it—the Chairs of it, the Justice Committee and the Public Administration Committee will have an early opportunity to ensure that they are clear about their separate roles and that there is no work overlap, that they seek the advice of the Liaison Committee if there is any difficulty, and that we have a clear differentiation.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

That would appear to make sense at face value, but if we have enhanced Calman proposals on initial devolution to Scotland and the proposed referendum on parliamentary powers in Wales, would they be scrutinised by this Select Committee, with the Deputy Prime Minister’s powers over the constitution, or by the Select Committees on Scottish and Welsh Affairs?

[Mr Heath]

The position would be no different from that which obtains now in respect of the responsibilities of the Justice Committee—at least until the changes in the machinery of government—where there was that overlap and it was quite proper for the Justice Committee to look at devolution issues. Indeed, having served as a member of the Justice Committee, I know that we did look at devolution matters, but I do not think that at any stage we trod on the toes of the Scottish or Welsh Affairs Committees in the process. It is quite possible to have proper co-ordination that prevents that from happening.

Mention was made of Lords reform. Obviously, this is a key area of the Deputy Prime Minister’s responsibilities, so of course, the Committee will have the capacity to look at it if it chooses. I am not going to pre-empt the work programme that the Committee will agree. It would be a huge abuse for a Minister to set out what a Select Committee should choose to do, but I would expect it to be an early priority for the Committee to look at the emerging picture of constitutional reform, which would include Lords reform.

In answer to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), there is also a clear commitment in the setting up of the proposals for Lords reform that, first, there would be pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposals that emerge, which would involve any Member of this House who chose to take an interest. As a constitutional Bill, when any legislation is introduced—indeed this applies even to the preliminary motions before the House—it would be taken on the Floor of the House and involve every Member of the House. Therefore, I do not think that he needs to be concerned.

I listened to what the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) had to say about how disappointed she was about today’s announcement of the Government Committee—it will not be a Select Committee of the House, and that is an important distinction—to consider and introduce proposals for Lords reform. If she was disappointed at that announcement, she must have been devastated when her own Justice Secretary—her own Lord Chancellor—did exactly the same thing in the previous Parliament. I served on that Government Committee, which did not contain any Members from minority parties; only the three main parties were represented. She must have been devastated to have heard of that arrangement then, so our doing the same thing has simply added, like Pelion on Ossa, to her discomfiture. That is not a concern that we need to dwell on, because it is clear that this Government programme of consideration of Lords reform will result in proposals that will receive more than adequate scrutiny in this House.

[Mr Cash]

The Deputy Leader of the House has addressed a number of points, but not some of the ones that I raised. Would he be kind enough to consider my point regarding whether this Committee might, to put it in ordinary parlance, be bounced by the fact that decisions have been taken under the coalition agreement, or by other means, to put through proposals such as the alternative vote and other matters of the kind that I mentioned, before the Committee has had a chance to consider the issues? In particular, will he state now that the proposals under the coalition agreement to implement the Wright Committee’s recommendations in full mean just that, and that the wording of the Standing Order that will be introduced shortly will be exactly the same as that of the one proposed earlier this year?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman wished me to answer his points before I had dealt with those of other hon. Members, and I am sorry that he had to be a little patient in that respect. He said that decisions have been taken, but Parliament takes decisions on legislation. Perhaps the key difference between this Administration and the previous one is that we want Parliament to take these decisions. It is for the Government to propose and for this House to dispose of those propositions. Therefore, it is not wrong in any way for the Government to be committed to a programme of government that is placed before this House for consideration. Both my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I are absolutely committed to ensuring that this House has the proper opportunities to have its say. That is the difference between how we do business and how the previous Government did it. I am unable to deal with the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Wright Committee, because that would be completely outside the terms of this motion. However, he will find that his questions on implementing the Wright Committee recommendations will be answered in the very near future.

Let me deal briefly with the other points raised, one of which related to costs. We know that it costs money to have Select Committees, but it is equally important that this House has the opportunity to scrutinise the decisions of every Minister of this House. Thus, this is a cost that we have to bear, but I must say to the hon. Member for Wellingborough that we have abolished a whole tier of Select Committees in the form of the Regional Select Committees, which were an unnecessary and expensive farce. We have got rid of them, so we have a little money in the bank, as it were, in terms of the cost of scrutiny.

I was asked whether the membership of this Committee would be appointed. No, it will be elected, like that of every other Select Committee; this is a perfectly normal Select Committee of the House.

[Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)]

The Deputy Leader of the House is totally wrong to say that the abolition of Regional Select Committees will save any money that could be put to this new Committee. That is not true because the Regional Select Committees were served by staff who already worked on the Select Committees that were previously in place. I have inquired about this and he is wrong to say that there is any saving from the abolition of Regional Select Committees.

[Mr Heath]

It is an intriguing argument that however many Select Committees there were, they could operate and travel around the country at no cost to the House at all. That is an interesting argument, but not one for today, perhaps.

I was asked why the chairmanship of this Committee is to be Labour, and it was suggested that perhaps the wording should be “the official Opposition”. This was a decision of the House, and it decided that the Speaker should allocate the Chairs of the various Select Committees according to the proportion of Members in the House elected from each party. It was the Speaker’s decision—based, I am sure, on excellent mathematical principles—that this chairmanship should be allocated to the Labour party. Unless the House decides otherwise, it is not the Government’s position that the decision that the House has already taken should be changed.

On the time interval for nominations, that is for the convenience of the House. If the House does not like it, it is at liberty to say that it wants the full period for nominations, but I think that most want the Select Committees up and running at the earliest opportunity. They want to make sure that people have the opportunity to vote for the Chairs of all the Select Committees at the same time. They want to make sure that the best people, and not people who have been rejected for other chairmanships, put themselves forward for the Chairs in which they are most interested. I think that is the right way of doing things, but it is for the House to decide.

I think I have dealt with all the points that have been raised.

[Mr Chope]

Will the Deputy Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Heath]

Yes, but this is the very last effort from the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Chope]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for the way in which he has responded to the debate. One point that I raised that he has not addressed yet is whether this Select Committee will have exclusive control over the consideration of political and constitutional reform, or whether other Select Committees that wish to consider aspects of political and constitutional reform that fall within their ambit will be free so to do.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman is right that I did not answer that point other than tangentially in relation to the question about Wales and Scotland that was raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie). Every Select Committee has the right to consider matters that fall within the ambit of the Department or ministerial team that it scrutinises, and nothing will change on that. This Committee is exactly the same as every other Select Committee of the House. I expect Committees to be sensible about this and not to duplicate each other’s activities, but there are no artificial barriers and no one is going to say to a Committee that has an issue or a constitutional bearing within its departmental responsibilities, “You are not allowed to scrutinise that because we now have this new Select Committee to do the job.” That is not the way that I would expect Select Committees to work. I would expect the Chairs of Committees to discuss these matters with one another, to use the good offices of the Liaison Committee when it is set up and to make sure that there is not duplication of effort. On that basis, I hope that I have responded to the debate and that the House will accept the motions before us so that we can get the system up and running as quickly as possible and extend the scrutiny of the House to the full range of members of the ministerial team.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That the following new Standing Order be made, until the end of the current Parliament:–

(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, to consider political and constitutional reform.

(2) The committee shall consist of eleven members.

(3) The committee shall have power–

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time; and

(b) to appoint specialist advisers to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee’s order of reference.

(4) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.

(5) The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report to the committee from time to time.

(6) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the evidence taken before the sub-committee.

Dissolution of Parliament

David Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

I begin by not only acknowledging the number of hon. Members who are present for the Adjournment, which signifies that it is a matter of interest, but congratulating the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on securing the debate. The irony is not lost on me that the first Adjournment debate of the Parliament is about how we might remove the Parliament. However, it is well timed.

I have two further reasons for thanking the hon. Gentleman. The first is personal. Without wishing to sound too much like Mr. Pooter, I want to record the fact that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to be the first Liberal Minister to speak from the Dispatch Box since Sir Archibald Sinclair on 16 May 1945. Secondly, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his approach to the debate. He has asked many serious questions about the policy and it is right that we have the opportunity to discuss them and that Parliament should have its say.

I want to make it clear on behalf of the Government that the principles of the policy are firmly settled—that is our view—but that some of the detail is still to be fully worked through. Although I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions faithfully, I cannot answer some simply because they have not yet been decided. However, I want to make it absolutely clear that, although this proposition comes from the Government, it is for Parliament to decide. That is the right way to do things: we must not force things through Parliament, but debate them and hear what people have to say.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is right that it is for Parliament to decide, but the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) made it clear that, when a constitutional matter of this importance is proposed, there is usually a process of pre-legislative scrutiny and extended reflection. Is the hon. Gentleman going to provide the House with a description of how that process will be conducted for this major constitutional change?

[Mr Heath]

First of all, the experience of those of us who have been in the House for the last 13 years is that that is not how constitutional matters have been dealt with. However, I assure the hon. Lady that there will be a full process. The House has a very early opportunity this evening to debate the proposition, but we will have at least two further opportunities to look at it in detail. The first will come when we debate the motion that will be put forward. That is a serious matter, but the second opportunity will arise when we consider the constitutional legislation, and I give the assurance that that constitutional Bill will be dealt with on the Floor of the House. Unlike what happened under the previous Administration, it will not be guillotined. People will be able to have their say on the legislation, and we will have the opportunity to hear them and to respond.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and we note that the Bill will not be guillotined when it comes to the House. He has just said that he thinks Parliament should decide on this issue of great importance. Does that mean that there will be a free vote on his side of the House?

[Mr Heath]

All Members of Parliament are entitled to take whatever view they feel appropriate. It is not for me to say what position the Whips will take, but let us be clear: this is a Government proposition and I would expect members of the Government parties to support it.

[Ms Eagle]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Heath]

No. I am being very generous, but this is not the hon. Lady’s Adjournment debate and I want to hear more from others.

I repeat what the Prime Minister has said already, which has been quoted. He has said that the country wants strong and stable government, and we are determined to deliver that stability with a lasting coalition. A fixed-term Parliament is part of that process, and I shall quote what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said in his speech of 19 May:

“This is a new right for Parliament, additional to the existing powers of no confidence. We are not taking away Parliament's right to throw out government. We are taking away government's right to throw out Parliament.”

It seems to me that that is a worthy objective.

There are real problems with—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) can chunter from a sedentary position, but I am going to continue to set out the problems with the current system. The most obvious is that it gives an unfair advantage to the Prime Minister of the day and the party in power. We have seen it time after time, with Prime Ministers choosing the moment for the Dissolution of Parliament not for the good of the country but for the good of their own party interests. That cannot be the right way to do it—

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

No, as I have given way to the hon. Lady already.

Secondly, not only does the party in power have an unfair advantage, but there is an inevitable period of uncertainty, especially towards the end of the fourth Session of a Parliament, about when Dissolution will happen. Dealing with those issues through having a fixed-term Parliament seems to me to be something that this Parliament ought to support.

In addition to those undoubted benefits, our proposition would also reduce the complexity of electoral administration. We have a new regime of spending limits, and they are unnecessarily complex in the context of the moveable feast that is the present timing of an election. It would also allow the legislative programme to be planned more effectively—something dear to my heart and that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—especially in the fourth and fifth Sessions. But none of those advantages—

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Goodwill.)

[Mr Heath]

None of this will work if the Prime Minister of the day maintains the power to pick the election date, and that is what is being addressed by the proposal for fixed-term Parliaments.

Much of the debate in the Chamber and outside has been predicated on a misunderstanding—I do not say that it is deliberate—and a confusion between a vote of confidence and a dissolution vote. I know that the hon. Member for Christchurch does not share that confusion—he is very clear—but much of the comment in the press and some of the interventions this evening and earlier today suggest such confusion. The hon. Gentleman postulates the distinction between a strong Parliament and a strong Government. A strong Parliament is able to remove the Government of the day. A strong Government should not be able to remove the Parliament. That is the distinction that we are trying to address.

The Government will still have to resign if they lose the confidence of the House, and that will still be on a simple majority. There is no ambiguity about that. If the Government lose a vote of confidence, they are no longer the Government of the day.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give the House a commitment that this Government will not use their 55% to call an election earlier than five years?

[Mr Heath]

It is a clear commitment on the part of this Government that we wish to maintain this Parliament and the Government over a five-year period. That is our determination, and I have no difficulty in saying that.

I return to what will happen in the event of a vote of no confidence, because it is crucial. There would then be two possible outcomes. If the Government lost a vote of confidence, they would no longer be the Government—under our conventions in this House and in common with other political systems around the country. Then another party or coalition of parties might be able to form a Government from within the existing House of Commons. That is not the most unusual thing in the world, because it happens in many other systems that have a fixed-term Parliament. It also happens within our present system if the Government lose a vote of no confidence and it is apparent to the monarch that there is an alternative Government or coalition in the House.

If no one can form a Government that has the confidence of the House, Parliament will be dissolved. Irrespective of other circumstances, if the Government lose a vote of confidence and there is no prospect of stable government, another election is inevitable.

[Michael Connarty]

My problem is that, in the situation that the hon. Gentleman is describing, he is relying on conventions and an unwritten constitution. He is about to introduce a part of a written constitution for the first time stating that a 55% majority is required to dissolve Parliament. The parallel with Scotland is quite clear. A minority Government in Scotland can lose confidence votes and remain, because they cannot be dissolved if they do not wish to go, unless 66% of Members vote for it. That was discussed over decades and is legislation in the Scotland Act 1998. Unless he is proposing to introduce more written constitutional elements stating what he has just said about convention, his word is worth nothing.

[Mr Heath]

I do not understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. This will be legislation, and he will have the opportunity to make the points that he wishes to make when he sees the text of the legislation. He does not have that in front of him.

[Mr Chope]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain how this Dissolution will take place? He says that there would have to be a Dissolution of Parliament, but what would be the mechanics of that? The Prime Minister referred to Parliament dissolving itself.

[Mr Heath]

The legislation will be framed in such a way that, if no Government are formed within a particular time, Parliament stands dissolved. Now that is not a particularly difficult concept even for those who do not wish to understand—but, of course, I do not include the hon. Member for Christchurch among them. That is what will happen, and it provides an answer to those who suggest that it would be possible for a zombie Government who have lost the confidence of the House to be maintained in office. That cannot happen under the proposals that we will bring forward.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is helping the House understand this system and is making good progress. However, the real change under this 55% rule is that it will remove the monarch’s role. Is the removal of the monarch’s discretion the real purpose of the proposal?

[Mr Heath]

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

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

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

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

[Mr Heath]

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

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way so generously. I was reassured by what he said earlier about the lack of a guillotine on the legislation. Would he like to take this opportunity to say whether that will be the Government’s new general policy on guillotines or whether it is specific only to this legislation? I remember, time after time, quite rightly being sent into the No Lobby to vote against guillotine motion after guillotine motion. I trust that we will be carrying into government the opposition to guillotines that we indicated when in opposition.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that I was in the same Lobby voting against those guillotine motions. That is why it is our clear intention not to apply automatic guillotines or automatic programme motions, because we do not believe that to be in the interests of proper consideration in this House. This is the new politics—the new way that we are going to run this House of Commons.

Returning to where a vote of no confidence has taken place, it is extraordinary to suggest that there would be circumstances in which this House would refuse to vote for a Dissolution when it was clear that a Dissolution and a new general election were the only way forward. However, even given that, we are putting forward the automatic Dissolution proposal, as a safeguard that we will make part of the legislation, if no new Prime Minister can be appointed within a certain number of days. It seems to me that that is appropriate.

I know that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk has said that we cannot make any read-across to the Scottish legislation, but I am afraid that I do not entirely agree with him. One thing in the Scottish legislation is that although a two-thirds majority is required for an early Dissolution, there is a fall-back position, with which he will be familiar, which provides for automatic Dissolution if the First Minister resigns and the successor is not appointed within 28 days. That seems an entirely proper constitutional safeguard, and I am very happy to propose something of that kind for our legislation.

[Michael Connarty]

The hon. Gentleman is correct on the point about resignation, which I did know about, but when a Prime Minister loses a vote of confidence—for example, the First Minister in Scotland—he need not resign. That is the point that I am making. Unless the hon. Gentleman puts it in his Bill that after a vote of confidence is lost the Prime Minister must resign, it is worth nothing.

[Mr Heath]

Let me respectfully suggest that that is the situation at the moment. I am quite prepared to argue on the details of the new legislation, but what I am not prepared to do is argue about the present constitutional position, which is that it is unprecedented for a Prime Minister who has lost a vote of no confidence to fail to resign. We must be absolutely clear that creating constitutional difficulties, which are inherent in our present unwritten constitution, is not a sensible way of debating the new position.

Let us deal with the 55% threshold, because I am not so foolish as not to understand that this is the difficulty that many right hon. and hon. Members have. The Prime Minister has set out the Government’s position clearly—it is there in black and white in the coalition document. We believe that 55% is the right threshold, but it is perfectly open to hon. Members to argue that a different threshold is appropriate.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

We will do.

[Mr Heath]

So be it—that is the point of parliamentary debate. However, there is no point whatever in having legislation on fixed-term Parliaments if there is no constitutional lock. Otherwise it will become a meaningless piece of legislation. I know of no legislation in any country that provides for fixed-term Parliaments that does not provide some form of constitutional lock—some form of entrenchment—in order to ensure that the legislation is not cast aside at the whim of the Executive.

That would seem to return to the position in which the Executive had the power and Parliament was deprived of it.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

As this is a contentious matter, will the Deputy Leader of the House tell us whether he is generally in favour of pre-legislative scrutiny? If he is, will this whole matter be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, and can he give the House some idea of the timing and of when the Bill is likely to be brought before the House?

[Mr Heath]

I cannot give details of timing—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I cannot give details of timing on the first day of the Queen’s Speech debates in a new Parliament. I can only say that it is our firm intention that the motion will be brought forward before the summer recess, so hon. Members will not have to be patient for too long before they see its terms. As for the legislation, it is clearly set out in the Queen’s Speech as part of this Session’s legislation, so the hon. Gentleman can be assured that it will be brought forward.

In this instance, I believe that there is merit in listening to what people have to say about the legislation after it is published, rather than being too precipitate in moving from the motion, which will be debated by the House, to the legislation in due course. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some reassurance.

[Mr Chope]

Will the Minister tell us when the binding motion is going to be published? If it is going to be debated before the summer recess, and if it has already been prepared, there is no reason why it should not be put on the Order Paper very soon so that we can have the maximum amount of notice.

[Mr Heath]

It will be put on the Order Paper at the earliest opportunity. I cannot be more precise than that, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that. There is much merit in people seeing clearly what is proposed as soon as possible, so that we can debate the matter.

[Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)]

Will the Deputy Leader of the House explain why he seems so reluctant to allow pre-legislative scrutiny? A measure of this type should be allowed such scrutiny, and we do not believe the coalition’s collapse to be imminent. Presumably, therefore, there is plenty of time for us to give the Bill the consideration that it deserves.

[Mr Heath]

May I remove any view that the hon. Gentleman might have formed that I am reluctant to entertain the possibility of pre-legislative scrutiny? We have simply not determined the treatment of the Bill yet, so I cannot answer his question, but I hear what he says. There is a strong case for pre-legislative scrutiny, but I do not want to extend the consideration of this legislation into the following Session, because that would not be appropriate.

Let me return to the 55% threshold, because that will allow me to deal with one of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Christchurch. He asked for the details of how the 55% was to be calculated. Again, I cannot answer his question at this moment. That will be a matter for further discussion. I will say to him, however, that the system for calculating the threshold needs to be absolutely clear, and that there must be no doubt about the number of votes required to pass the threshold in any specific set of circumstances. It is important to make that clear in the legislation.

The important thing is that the final result delivers our twin objectives of stability in Parliament and Government while making it possible to have an election if no party or combination of parties can command the confidence of this House. I look forward to the debates that we will have on the motion and on the legislation.

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Gentleman appears to be reaching his peroration. I wonder whether he could explain how the proposal for 55% has been put forward without the Government knowing what that 55% has to comprise. Surely the first thing to do would be to work out what was meant by the 55%—we need to know what particular group it would be 55% of, for example—rather than asserting that a threshold of 55% was necessary, then trying to work out the details later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

The coalition agreement was, I think, published three days ago, so it is not unreasonable to do further work on the details of what is being proposed. We will do so in the context of the expressions of interest of right hon. and hon. Members who have a legitimate interest in this matter.

Let me finish by dealing as far as I can with the series of questions put by the hon. Member for Christchurch. I think that I have already answered some of them, but I do not want him to feel that I have ignored them. He asked what is meant by a “binding motion” in paragraph 24 of the final coalition agreement. Surely, he says, any motion that is passed can later be amended or revoked by MPs. Yes, of course it can. A binding motion is an expression of intent, which can be reversed by Parliament at a later a stage because that is the way we do things in this House. There is no question about that.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the binding motion will be brought before the House before the summer recess. Yes, I have already said that it will. He should read nothing into the words omitted from the final version of the coalition agreement about the first days following it.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the legislation promised in the coalition document to make provision for fixed-term Parliaments of five years applies only to future Parliaments or whether it will apply retrospectively to the Parliament elected on 6 May 2010. It is our intention that it should apply to the present Parliament. That is clearly the proposition from the Government. He asked for details about the 55% threshold, but I think that I have just answered that by saying that it is a detail that needs to be addressed further.

The hon. Gentleman also asked whether Members other than Government Members would be able to table a motion for Dissolution and what safeguards would apply in respect of the Speaker being required to give precedence to such a motion over ordinary business. The hon. Gentleman and I have not argued so vociferously in this Chamber for such matters not to be in the hands of the Leader of the House for us to say now that it should be in his and only in his hands. It is clear that the intended legislation will not be placed into the hands of only a Government Minister; it will be open to the House to table that motion.

The hon. Gentleman raised the example of recent experience in Germany and the artificial construction put in place there in order to provoke a motion of no confidence. He is right that that was a shoddy way—that is what it seems to me, although I do not want to open up any diplomatic breach with our German friends—of managing the Germans’ fixed-term parliamentary arrangements, but it has to be said that that would be possible here under the current arrangements. There is nothing to stop a Government of the day deliberately losing a vote of no confidence, thus creating the circumstances for a Dissolution. There is no change there, which is what I am trying to emphasise. Very often, the circumstances will be the same, both before and after the relevant legislation.

The hon. Gentleman asks in what circumstances a Dissolution will follow if the Government are defeated on a motion of confidence by a bare majority. Well, I have already covered that at some length. Will there be any circumstances in which a Government defeated on a confidence motion can remain in office? No, but that is subject to the conventions that are already in place. As to hon. Members feeling that we need a written constitution, I would personally favour that, but it is not our current policy.

If the Government did not remain in office, could an alternative minority Government be formed, even if it did not enjoy the support of a majority of MPs on confidence and supply measures? It is quite obvious that if an alternative Government were formed that did not have the House’s confidence, they would fall on the very first time they attempted to put forward a legislative programme or a Budget, so it would not be much of a Government. I think that we would quickly reach a point where Dissolution would be inevitable.

The hon. Gentleman asked what would prevent Parliament from repealing, by a vote of 50% plus one, legislation requiring a 55% threshold for dissolution. The answer is nothing. If this House and the other place agree to repeal legislation, that is the legislative process. Nothing would change: there is nothing that would entrench that in constitutional law.

The hon. Gentleman’s other questions are worthy ones. Along with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I will consider them, because they concern the details of how we will manage the process of the legislation to give every Member of the House a proper say.

This has been an extremely useful exercise, which has, I hope, reassured some Members about our intentions. I hope that it has also explained those intentions, and has given Members an opportunity to express any concerns that they may have. In due course they will be able to express those concerns at length, both on the motion that we will table and on the legislation.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman again on securing the debate, and I am grateful to him.

Question put and agreed to.