Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie]

Exactly that debate was had in 1911. After the Osborne judgment, Labour Members could no longer be funded by the unions, which meant, in effect, that they were destitute. Then, in 1911, a flat rate—a beautifully simple Members’ allowance— was introduced at £400 a year. Members were told: “There you go. This is not a salary, a remuneration, a reimbursement of expenses or a payment in kind for services; it is merely an allowance that recognises that there are costs associated with being here, and Members are trusted to organise their lives in the way that is necessary.”

One cannot second-guess and legislate for the topography of every seat or the lifestyles—the changing lifestyles—of every MP, or for the reproduction rates of MPs: we are now on our fifth. One cannot create a system that takes into account whether the trains are working or whether it is going to snow and being told only at 5 o’clock in the evening. There is no way that the route that IPSA is currently pursuing will satisfy the needs of the public to have a Parliament that functions effectively.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

So why not go back to a simple flat-rate allowance for everybody?

[Adam Afriyie]

The Parliamentary Standards (Amendment) Bill, which will appear on tomorrow’s Order Paper—of course, I do not know what is going to happen to it—says that that is exactly what we ought to do, because it would save the taxpayer money and give MPs time to serve their constituents. That proposal is not directly related to the motion, but I just point it out. It would take courage to enact such a simple, straightforward scheme, and I urge IPSA to have the courage to do so. There is nothing more transparent than a flat-rate Members’ allowance: everyone can see what it is and everyone can see that every MP gets the same thing.

The current system causes inconvenience and makes things very difficult for Members with families and Members who are less well-off. It also causes problems, because Members are not making claims. Looking back at this year, and certainly over the past six months, I know that virtually every one of my colleagues—I have spoken to 350 MPs one-to-one—has not made the claims that they are entitled to make. That may be seen externally as a great success—“Look, IPSA has crushed the MPs, and they cost far less!”—but we all know that that is not the situation. We know that Members are borrowing from their parents, having to borrow cars from friends, and still sleeping on floors of offices, which they are not supposed to do, because they are not claiming what they rightfully should be able to claim. It is not a good situation.

However, I am not moaning on behalf of existing MPs. I love all the MPs here, but I am not whingeing on their behalf. What I am concerned about is the functioning of Parliament for the next 100 years. Where will we be in 30 years’ time if we continue down this route where only the wealthy can serve? That is where we were before; I thought we had moved on. IPSA, I hope you are listening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

As one of the last Back Benchers to speak, I hope that I can say that we have had a good debate. Everyone has said their piece and made a valuable contribution, including the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who is fast becoming a national treasure. If he was not there, he would have to be invented, because his arguments have to be listened to.

The fact is—there is no doubt about it—that we cocked up the system. The thing collapsed, and we have a system that we all know is not working, and that is hugely complex and massively bureaucratic. Above all, it is costing the taxpayer more money—namely £10,000 to administer it before any money is handed out. We are only a small body—a medium-sized company of 600 people—and if this was the private sector, there would be a little accounts department run by half a dozen people. We do not need this vast bureaucracy, so in the few minutes I have to speak, I shall offer a simple solution.

I make no criticism of the staff. As I am pretty hopeless with computers, a very nice young man from IPSA sat next to me last week for two and a half hours while, with two fingers, I tried to claim for about five journeys. My criticism is not of the young people who work in IPSA, but of our Front Benchers, and particularly the three party leaders who got into a bidding war last year and landed us with this mess. By the way, thank God they are backing out of this and leaving it to Back Benchers, because this is a Back-Bench affair—it is nothing to do with Front Benchers. My criticism is also of Sir Ian Kennedy who, with his board, seems to have no conception of how Parliament is run.

My first guiding principle is that the electors want complete transparency, yet we have created a system that is so complex and bureaucratic that it is too expensive to publish receipts that were sought in the first place. It is Kafkaesque. My second guiding principle is that the system should cost the taxpayer less, but this is costing the taxpayer more, so no one is happy—what are we gaining?

There is something of the biter bit here, because for years we have created ever-more complex social security systems to try to regulate people’s behaviour. That resulted in massive fraud and error in the Department for Work and Pensions, and now it has come here. Perhaps it is time for us to try to create simpler systems throughout the civil service. That is why I have always argued for a simple system of no-fraud, no-error child benefit—a flat-rate benefit.

We should have a simple, flat-rate allowance like the old London costs allowance, because every single Member of Parliament has to live in London. I say to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw and others that it is not for us to determine what that should be—it would be for an independent body. I would be out of pocket under such a system because, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field), I need a home in my north Lincolnshire constituency, which is three and a half hours away, as well as a home here, but we all know that the secret of happiness is not to compare oneself to others. Let us have the same allowance for every Member of Parliament.

[Duncan Hames]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Leigh]

I cannot give way because I have been told that I have only three or four minutes.

Such a flat-rate allowance should be taxable so that the Inland Revenue is not involved. There would be no fraud, no possibility of error and no receipts. Every Member of Parliament would get the same.

What we have at the moment is fundamentally anti-family. When my predecessor came to the House, he virtually had to buy his seat, and when he left Newark station, the station master would say to him, “When will your next annual visit be, sir?” Over the past 30 or 40 years, we have created a system in which ordinary people with no private means—people such as me, who have been full-time Members of Parliament for all that time—have been able to devote themselves to public affairs. I am sorry to get personal, but for 27 years I have carted my family up and down the A1 for three and a half and hours in either direction. I have created a small family home in Lincolnshire, and a family home in London. Surely we should allow people to preserve that sort of lifestyle.

We are all different—some people have big families, others have small families; some have old families, some have young families—but we need a system of allowances, which I think should be set at a flat rate, and pay that allows ordinary people with no private resources to come to the House and to serve the public. That is all we want to do; nobody comes here to make money or to get rich. We just want to serve the public. We love Parliament, but surely we have to be allowed to do our job and stay with our families. This place should not become the preserve of the rich, as it used to be 30 or 40 years ago. So, away with all this complexity! Away with all this bureaucracy! Just give MPs a decent salary. Every member of the public I speak to says the same. They are sick and tired of this debate; let us end it now.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I just do not agree with the way in which the hon. Gentleman has characterised this. We have said that the support of a significant number of Members is required to have an early election. It is very simple for the House to make a decision. If a simple majority is required to have an early election, we do not have fixed-term Parliaments because if the governing party or parties have a majority in this House, they will simply be able to table a motion, their own side will support it and we will have an election whenever the Prime Minister chooses. If that is what the House wants, fine. However, the House has already decided when it gave this Bill its Second Reading that it wants fixed-term Parliaments, and it did so again when we debated clause 1 last week and decided on the date and the fact that we would have five-year Parliaments. Our proposition is that if we allow an early election on a simple majority, we drive a coach and horses through the Bill.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Just to be topical, what would happen in a situation such as exists in Ireland at the moment, where there is a weak Government, a coalition breaks up, there is a financial crisis and it is clearly essential that the Government renew themselves with an early general election? What would happen in such circumstances if the Bill goes through as drafted? Would we have the absurd situation that two thirds of Members would have to vote to kill off a Parliament that nobody wanted to survive any longer?

[Mr Harper]

There are two parts to clause 2. Importantly—some Members were getting this confused—a motion of no confidence in the Government can still be passed by a simple majority. So if a Government did not command the confidence of the House, the House could express that lack of confidence. I shall not go into that in detail, because we will deal with it when we discuss a later group of amendments—Mr Hoyle is clear about that—but the House can vote in support of a motion of no confidence and the Government will then have the period of examining whether another Government can be formed from within that Parliament.

As the hon. Member for Foyle said earlier, when I do not believe my hon. Friend was present, the Bill also provides the opportunity to renew the Parliament if there is a sense that events mean that it needs to be renewed—I believe that is the view in Ireland at the moment. If a simple majority has lost faith in the Government, a motion of no confidence can be passed. If there is a general sense that there should be an election, we have given the House that opportunity—a power that it does not currently possess. I am surprised, as the hon. Gentleman said he was, that some Members of the House sound as though they do not want a power that is not possessed by the House and has previously been possessed only by the Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

That is an interesting idea, but that is not what the Bill says, although I am not criticising my hon. Friend for that. The Bill simply says that

“on a specified day the House passed a motion of no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government (as then constituted)”.

I described in an earlier debate the shenanigans of the 14-day period after a day had ended without the House having passed any motion expressing confidence in any Government of Her Majesty. What happens next is that all these people get together in a huddle and then rush up and down Downing street and Whitehall going to see the Cabinet Secretary and receiving some instructions about what they should do, in his view, if they want a stable Government. The net result is that we have a completely chaotic situation driven by behind-the-scenes, unknown negotiations that are then announced—

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend remember—happy days—when we were Maastricht rebels? We defeated the Government on the paving motion, and they then brought in another motion that was related to a no confidence motion, and we were all brought to heel in that way. Although I would not want to encourage that sort of behaviour, at least it was clear, was it not? The Government were saying, “This is where we are—we stand here.” At least that made for strong government.

NATO Summit

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are making very good progress in training up the Afghan police and army. We are a little ahead of schedule. The key thing about this NATO summit was to get other countries to commit to adding to the training mission. There were some very welcome developments, such as the Canadians who, in pulling back on the combat forces front, committed to the training mission. As I said, Britain added another 320 trainers. I think we are on target to deliver the sort of Afghan national security forces we need to complete our drawdown by 2014.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

To be honest, I have always questioned whether foreign combat troops can ever win a war in Afghanistan. What does the Prime Minister say to those who argue that setting a deadline just incentivises the Taliban never to negotiate?

[The Prime Minister]

I think it incentivises the Afghan Government to recognise that we are serious about handing over a country for them to run. It also shows the Afghan security forces that they are going to have to learn to stand on their own two feet. Let me make two additional points. First, there is a serious amount of time to elapse between now and the end of 2014 when all this has to be completed. This is not some rapid deadline; there are a lot of years between now and then to make it work. Secondly, Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary has said about the US forces:

“I think anything that remains after 2014 would be very modest and very much focused on the kind of train and advise and assist role”.

So I do not think we are putting ourselves apart from the consensus on this matter.

G20 Summit

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. I did discuss that with President Obama. What is happening in Yemen should be absolutely at the top of the list, because of the al-Qaeda threat that is coming out of that part of the Arabian peninsula. President Obama and I agreed that we have to take a mixture of steps. One of the problems is encouraging President Saleh to see that the al-Qaeda threat is a threat to his own country and needs to be top of the list of what he wants to address. Obviously Yemen also faces problems with rebels in the south and Houthi rebels in the north, but we have to convince it that the al-Qaeda threat is a threat to all of us and to the security of the world, and that is what we will do through aid, through the Friends of Yemen process and through every other means at our disposal.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The deputy leader of the Labour party asked my right hon. Friend what his agenda is. Is his agenda that when he returns in triumph from his 10th or 20th G20 conference, he can tell the House that he has turned round our economy by creating a small-government, flat, low-tax and privatised economy?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend gives me an extremely good script. My agenda at such gatherings is to stand up for Britain’s national interests. Above all, as a trading nation, that is about keeping the markets of the world open, and making sure that British business can create wealth and jobs around the world. That is the agenda we should have. When we are trying to get our economy growing at home, it is very important that we focus on those things that most help us back here in Britain.

Departmental Business Plans

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Letwin]

That is a very sensible question, and I am happy to explain that to the hon. Gentleman. The point of laying out these plans is so that people can see what we intend to do. Manifestly, as we move through time, external circumstances may change and decisions may be taken to change this or that—I hope not very much, but that could occur. Where it does, we are forcing ourselves to explain that, because it will become apparent—in the House in written statements, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) suggested, and also on the website—that something we said we would do by a certain date we are not doing because we are doing something instead. We will have to explain that, and Select Committees and others will be able to interrogate us on it. That is what I mean by transparency.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Is not the danger that this “Yes Minister” Sir Humphrey language of horizon shift will disguise the real need for change? We should not just publish more reports that will go straight into the waste paper bin. We should, for instance, give professionals in our schools real power to manage the schools in the way they want, in hiring and firing staff, setting the curriculum and selecting pupils if they want. That would produce real change, not just more words from Whitehall.

[Mr Letwin]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that it is only by making the kinds of changes that he describes that we can really improve public services. That is why I have the good news for him that under the programme laid out in the Department for Education business plan my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will do exactly what my hon. Friend requests. That is why we have a programme of academies and free schools which gives those kinds of powers locally to the professionals on the ground. By doing that we enable parents and pupils, by choosing the schools of their own desire, to create real competitive pressure for excellence in the system. Combining that with the efforts to create a proper pupil premium means that the least advantaged will be most advantaged in our system, and the combination of those effects will be to give excellence and improvement for all.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

We were all much more in agreement about this in Committee. All I can say to my hon. Friend is that I believe very strongly, for the reasons I have given and because of the principles I have enunciated, that the 40% threshold is desirable. Incidentally, on the majority provisions prevalent in other democracies in the west, Denmark’s requirement on constitutional change is for 40% of registered voters and, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) implied, Italy has a turnout requirement of 50% of registered voters. Indeed, this country used something not similar, but parallel in the 1979 vote, when the requirement was for 40% of registered voters saying yes.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

All these amendments on thresholds are eminently sensible, but does my hon. Friend agree that there is no chance of their being accepted because the Government will not accept them and that is because there is such profound apathy about this measure among the British people that if any kind of threshold was in place, there would be no chance of the proposal in the referendum being accepted? That is the reality.

[Mr Cash]

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but the problem arises if he simply takes the view that, for one reason or another, either in this House or outside it, there is apathy. I simply refer him back to all the great constitutional problems that have arisen in the past 150 years, when there has also been a problem of apathy, because the constitutional arguments are difficult to get across. I think of this on the basis of, for example, the preference arrangements where a person votes for only one candidate, which will mean that a large number of people will, in effect, be disfranchised—they might be very concerned about that. Some 1.5 million people voted for the UK Independence party and the British National party, and one might say that they may well not vote for anybody else. The other thing, which goes with that, is that if one is faced with a choice of Liberal and Labour, there may be an increased likelihood of people voting Liberal Democrat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) knows that I have great respect for him. He is adamantine in his positions, holding to them with consistency and firmness, and I respect him for it enormously. Often I disagree with him, but I almost entirely agree with him on this Bill, and I also think that he has made a good case this evening. He referred to Conservative principles, so I wish to nick a few words that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) reminded some Welsh colleagues of this morning in Westminster Hall. As he said, Evelyn Waugh asked what the point of a Conservative Government is if it does not turn the clock back, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Stone will agree with that.

However, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about thresholds in referendums because, broadly, they are not a good idea. As these amendments have shown, it is difficult to know whether the threshold should relate to the turnout—the number of people who vote—or the turnout of those who express a preference. In other words, should it leave out or include those who spoiled their ballot paper? Alternatively, should it relate to those who vote yes to change? Obviously, in countries that have written constitutions all this tends to be laid down; it is one of the key elements that is written down. If someone wants to change any element of the constitution in Germany, Spain or many other countries, they have to obtain a fixed percentage—normally greater than an absolute majority—to be able to effect change. In the German constitution, any change has to be given a successful mandate after two subsequent general elections. I do not believe that that is the way we have tended to do things in the British system.

[Mr Leigh]

I am curious to know why the Labour party takes the attitude it does. Is it because it is, in principle, opposed to thresholds or is it because it is scarred by its experience in 1979, when the referendum would have gone through but for the threshold, which ushered in the vote of confidence, 18 years of Tory role and all the rest of it? Does Labour have a principled objection or is it just history?

[Chris Bryant]

The scars of history can give us principles—that is the truth of it. That may well apply to the Conservative party too in relation to some of the things it has had to change in recent years. I point out that if there were to be a threshold for election to this House or to council seats, especially in council by-elections, there would undoubtedly be some occasions when people would not be returned, because voters might choose to do precisely what happens, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) has said, in some countries where there is a threshold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Laing]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point. A referendum is not an election; it is a completely different part of the democratic process. The hon. Member for Rhondda and others have compared turnouts in general and local elections, in which voters choose between three, four or five candidates, with referendums, but they are not the same. If they were, a referendum would be called an election. A referendum is a plebiscite. In a referendum, the people are consulted on a particular issue on a yes or no vote; that is not the same as an election and comparisons between the two regarding turnout or other aspects are therefore irrelevant. The simple, inescapable principle is that a change to the voting system is a significant constitutional change; that is why the Government have decided to have a referendum—and rightly so. The outcome of a referendum to change our constitution must be, and must be seen to be, decisive. It must command confidence and respect and it should not be challengeable. If there is a derisory turnout, the result will not command respect or confidence. Indeed, it is worse that that.

[Mr Leigh]

Is not the virtue of my hon. Friend’s amendments, compared with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), that hers would not encourage abstention? With hers, everyone who wanted AV would go and vote for it and everyone who did not would vote against it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not think I have ever been quite so persuasive with any of my arguments as to persuade one of my hon. Friends not to press an amendment. [Interruption.] I hear the opposition, so I shall put that one away and take it as a victory.

My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest made it clear to the House that she does not think that referendums should be compared to elections in any way, but it is worth saying to hon. Members that if we were to adopt a similar process for elections, the House would be spared the services not of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) but of, among others, Mr Deputy Speaker’s colleague the right hon. Member for Bristol South (Dawn Primarolo), the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton), who is the Opposition Chief Whip, and—most tragically of all for our side of the House—my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who in his by-election on 10 July 2008 sadly polled only 24.4% of the electorate. We on the Government Benches would be sadly lacking if we had been deprived of his services.

[Mr Leigh]

I am now totally confused. Generally, I find it is a big mistake to attend debates, because one gets tempted to vote against the Government. Is my hon. Friend the Minister saying that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) is contrary to the coalition agreement, but that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is not?

[Mr Harper]

No, the amendment is not contrary to what is in the coalition agreement, but we do not agree with it, and I have set out clearly why. We do not, in this country, have a tradition of turnout thresholds. The one experience that we have had of an outcome-specific threshold was in a Scottish devolution referendum in 1979. That threshold was put there to deny Scottish devolution.

That leads us to the heart of the argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest made it clear, as she has done throughout, that she was confident of the decision that the British people would come to—but then she said she wanted to introduce her amendment, just in case. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone, in a revealing response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, said that we should trust the people. That is an expression that I used in my Second Reading speech, and it is right.

There are different views in both parts of the coalition and in the Opposition parties, but whatever our views, we should not set artificial limits that encourage people not to participate in the referendum. Whichever side of the argument we are on, we should have the courage of our convictions. We should get the Bill—or the part of it that we agree with—on to the statute book, make our case, engage with the people, explain to them the rights and wrongs of the cases, and trust the people, as the hon. Gentleman said, to make the right decision, to come out and vote, and to make a clear decision. Then the House will be able to proceed. That is the best way, so I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends not to press their amendments—and if do they press them, I urge the House to vote against them.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

European Council

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We did not have detailed conversations about the elements of the budget. Clearly those countries that are net recipients were opposed to what I was proposing, and obviously the tighter the budget, the less money there is for the things within that budget, but within the budget we should always fight for a good deal and we should also make sure that depressed parts of the UK get access to that money. But when you look at what the European Parliament was putting forward for its 6%, you find that it included, for instance, a massive amount more for dairy farming, so it was not actually connected to getting the European economy moving.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

What sort of world are MEPs living in? At a time when everybody else is tightening their belts, these people are awarding themselves ever more generous allowances and salaries, despite the fact that most people do not even know who they are. Will my right hon. Friend suggest to his friends on the Council that we export IPSA the—Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—to the European Parliament?

[The Prime Minister]

That is an idea of pure genius. I am not sure that even the brilliant simultaneous translation that is available would really enable me to explain IPSA in all its complexities. There is a serious point, however, and this is where transparency matters. I remember, when the whole problem of allowances, pay, pensions and everything broke in this place, looking again at the European Parliament’s rules. They are not transparent enough and we need to sort that out. As I say, when it comes to the European budget, transparency, which is going to be a great weapon in local government and central Government, can be such a weapon in Europe, too.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The contract is not working. The work for which contracts have already been met will continue to completion, but new contracts will not be started. Turning to the future, we continue to believe that technical training co-located on as few sites as possible is the best solution for our armed forces. St Athan was previously chosen as the best location at which to co-locate that training, and it was chosen for very good reasons. Those good reasons remain. That is why I have said that this is not the end of the road for St Athan, and we can work hard to try to find a good solution for the future.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have noted time and again in the past that brave new talk of co-operation with the French has dribbled into the sands partly because of British Aerospace’s understandable preference for commercial relationships in the United States. Will the Prime Minister explain how he will drive this process forward personally with President Sarkozy, because we are the only two nations in Europe that can propel our power, and we will either swim together or sink separately?

[The Prime Minister]

I am delighted that someone with such impeccable Eurosceptic credentials shares my view that this is a really worthwhile thing for our country to do. Let me explain what has changed: first, President Sarkozy is extremely keen on this defence relationship; secondly, he has put France straight into the heart of NATO; and thirdly, we both face the same pressures. We both have full-service armed forces: we both have very effective navies and air forces, and troops that really can make an impact on the ground. We both want to maintain and enhance those capabilities and I believe that, together, there is a huge number of things we can do. I am working on a programme with President Sarkozy—I have already discussed it with him—in advance of our summit that will take place soon, and I hope my hon. Friend will be pleased with the results that I think we will be able to deliver.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

What compounds that excellent intervention is that just today, the Liberal Democrat MSP for Dunfermline West, who was part of the committee that looked into the 2007 election, said:

“I am determined that this confusion be avoided at all costs for next year's election to the Scottish Parliament. I am therefore very much against the inclusion of a referendum on the same day as the Scottish elections!”

I have not found anyone so far—even the Deputy Prime Minister, who is not here today—who is in favour of coupling the two events. This is not about whether the British public can cope with one or two issues at a time; it is about ensuring that the issues are properly aired.

The problems do not stop there. If the referendum is combined with the other poll, there will be complications regarding the funding limits for political parties and for the referendum campaigns. To compound matters, an additional concern has been raised about the problem of differential turnout, given that some parts of the country—notably London—have no separate elections in May 2011. That makes live the issue of thresholds, which otherwise would not be an issue in the referendum.

Some argue that one of the virtues of combining the referendum with other polls is the likelihood of an increased turnout, but the logic of that argument works both ways, in that there could be lower turnouts where no elections are taking place on the same day. Do we really want to have debates on the legitimacy of the referendum after the event? I hope that hon. Members who have tabled amendments will ensure that there is a proper debate on that theme and that other hon. Members have listened to the issues that have been raised. Depending on what happens later this evening, I might decide not to press our amendment to a vote.

Concern has been expressed that 3.5 million eligible voters are not on the register. Rushing to have the referendum in less than seven months’ time reduces the chance of those people getting on the register and taking part. That is yet another reason why we say, “Decouple the referendum from 5 May, allow further time for the work to be carried out, and allow—for those of us who are progressives and want to see a change in the voting system—a real coalition, rather than the shabby deal done by this coalition Government behind closed doors over those five or six days”.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). I pretty well agreed with everything that he said in his excellent speech, but I wonder whether he might have been giving a slightly different speech today if the Labour party had won 10 more seats and there had been a Lib-Lab Government. However, we will never know—the past is another country. We are where we are, and we have to look at the situation that we have. I am tempted just to adopt the arguments given by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who made a first-rate speech, but there is a danger that we might complicate matters.

There are clearly a lot of political calculations going on, and I do not really know why this is such a macho issue for the Government, or why everything is being rolled out to win the vote tonight, as the Government undoubtedly will. I am not sure why the Deputy Prime Minister is so keen for the referendum to be on the same day as other elections. I suspect that there was a political calculation in the beginning. We can dismiss the argument that the reason why the Deputy Prime Minister wants to have the referendum on the same day is that he wants to save money. We can accept that that is a canard, as it was not his primary motivation. After all, the cost of a general election is some £80 million, and there is no doubt that if an AV system were introduced, that cost would rise steeply, as enormous costs would be tied up in the whole process of redistribution and cutting the number of seats. It simply does not wash that the primary motivation for having the referendum on the same day is the cost. There must have been some political reason, and I presume that that reason was that the Deputy Prime Minister thought that he would have more chance of winning the AV referendum if it were held on the same day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leigh]

Exactly.

There was a meeting yesterday—perhaps I am giving away what was discussed in a private meeting, but so what, as it adds interest to the debate—and someone from the no campaign came along and said, “Well, we have done all our calculations and we think that we are now perhaps more likely to win if the referendum is on the same day because the C2 vote is likely to be in our favour”—but who cares? Stuff these sorts of arguments. When we pressed this man, he was not able to adduce any firm evidence one way or the other. The fact is that nobody knows whether their side of the argument is more likely to win on 5 May or 2 June or whatever.

Surely what is important is that the arguments around AV are complex. I know that you would immediately rule me out of order, Mr Hood, if I started rehearsing all the arguments in favour of or against AV. I am sure that the Committee accepts, however, that at first sight the issue looks quite easy. It might be said, “Well, we have this first-past-the-post system, which is clearly not proportional and seems unfair to one party, the Liberal party, which gets many more votes nationally than can be justified by the number of seats it gets in this House, so we should have a fairer system.” At first sight, then, someone might think, “Well, I am a progressive and fair person”—actually, the Committee might not agree that I am a progressive and fair person, but I can be if I try, as I do occasionally, to behave myself—“and should accept the change.” Looking at the issue in more detail, however, it gets more difficult.

A document from the Library details how an individual election might pan out, which might lead us all to start scratching our heads. Do we all know that the Government’s favoured option is for “optional preferential voting”? How many members of the public have got their heads around “optional preferential voting”? Indeed, how many Members in their places in Committee now—apart from the lone Liberal or couple of Liberals, whom we know to be anoraks—understand it? We all know, of course, that the optional preferential voting system is an AV system that does not require the voter to give preferences for every candidate, but there are other AV systems, and those arguments have to be teased out. Would it be fairer to force people to vote for every candidate? Would it be fairer to have the system used in the London mayoral elections, where one or two candidates are voted for? Or should we vote for the system that the Government are proposing? As we can start to see, the issues are complicated. Should we not therefore have a chance to tease out these issues over three or four weeks, given that we are changing the entire way of voting for the House of Commons?

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Or hopefully not.

[Mr Leigh]

Or hopefully not changing it, as my hon. Friend has said.

It does not necessarily help the argument to question what happens in Australia, Finland or the USA. It is what happens here that is important, because we care about this place and we want to create our own system, which we want to be discussed and understood by the public. We also want to make a judgment that will be considered fair.

[Thomas Docherty]

I have just returned from the British-American parliamentary group visit to the US, with colleagues from all parties. [Interruption.] It is an excellent place to visit and regards were sent to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who was on last year’s trip. It might help the Committee to know that millions and millions of dollars are spent on each individual question put forward. Given that we rightly have restrictions on how much each side can spend, does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is one more reason why it should be a stand-alone vote?

[Mr Leigh]

That is a very good point and the hon. Gentleman referred earlier to another one about the number of spoiled ballot papers in the Scottish elections. If I were a Scottish MP, I would be angry about what is going on. We in this national Parliament are hijacking their election, when a very large amount of what is now decided for Scotland is decided by the Scottish Parliament. If I were a Scottish person, I would be angry, given that there is this concentration of media interest and writing in London, where no election at all is taking place, and the entire media will be focused on the AV issue. That would detract from the attention that should be paid to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has remembered that Northern Ireland has two elections set for the month of May—the local government elections and the Assembly elections. One Government supporter said a few moments ago, “Well, one of those can be set aside.” That is arrogance. Those elections are already set, and it is important that we can carry on with our democratic process.

[Mr Leigh]

There has not yet been enough debate today about Northern Ireland—or, indeed, about Wales—but the arguments are all the same. The fact is that 39 million people will vote on the first Thursday of May in the parliamentary elections, the Assembly elections and local elections. I repeat that 39 million people will be involved. Why should those important elections, which are crucial to the regions and nations of our country, be subsumed into this referendum?

It is incumbent on the Government to provide an argument. They should not try to pull the wool over our eyes about money. This is not about money; it is about something else. There are many other and better ways of doing this. The Government should listen to the arguments adduced in Committee, which are overwhelming. The overwhelming argument is that we should debate the issue calmly and sensibly, that the argument should be rolled out and that the people can make the decision. Let right be done; let us have a referendum on a different day.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to amendment 1, tabled by me and some 40 other Opposition Members representing all four nations of the United Kingdom. I am conscious that many Members wish to speak and that time is, thanks to the programming, restricted. I will therefore restrict my remarks to two aspects of the amendment: why we tabled it, and why the date of 8 September 2011 was chosen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful for that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) is present and he has usefully highlighted the fact that in the last three months the Deputy Prime Minister’s own costs have risen from £80 million to £100 million—a sign of inflation going mad within the coalition.

The second reason for suggesting an alternative date is in order to ensure that there is the fairest possible ballot. As I mentioned in response to an earlier intervention, not all parts of the United Kingdom will be holding elections on 5 May 2011. Large swathes of England have no elections scheduled. Recent history shows that in such circumstances turnout in the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish elections is significantly higher than in places in England that are holding purely local government or mayoral elections. If the referendum is held on the same day therefore, we will not be starting from a level and equal playing field in respect of participation. I and many others believe that, in effect, those who propose the referendum in this way are hoping to rig the methodology in their favour.

[Mr Leigh]

I think that one of the Deputy Prime Minister’s calculations was that there would be a differential turnout. He calculated that there would be a greater turnout in Scotland, as people are used to AV there, so they would be more likely to vote in favour. That argument might hit him in the back of the neck, however.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Given the current Liberal Democrat poll ratings, however, I look forward to them receiving a round thumping in May, both in my area and across Scotland. The Deputy Prime Minister is so out of touch with Scotland that he is not aware of just how unpopular he has become in the past five months. The hon. Gentleman’s point about the Deputy Prime Minister’s logic does stand, however.

There are a number of specific reasons why we have chosen 8 September 2011. First, that would allow us sufficient time to overcome the voter fatigue that I touched upon. It would also provide for several months of campaigning by those of all parties in a non-party political manner. Those colleagues who wish to campaign for a yes vote can come together without party badges and work for that, and those colleagues who wish to campaign for a no vote can also come together without the baggage of our party affiliations.

We also appreciate that there are other elections scheduled for spring 2012, spring 2013 and spring 2014, and we believe that it is important to be consistent and logical in our approach, which rules out those slots. We have therefore sought to find a date that provides sufficient breathing space between all those elections. We are also mindful of the advantages of good weather in ensuring strong voter turnout, and the clocks have not yet changed in September—although I accept that a private Member’s Bill that might deal with that is coming up in December. That issue needs to be balanced against the argument about clashing with school holidays; we have had many discussions about that in the Chamber. As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) mentioned, having the referendum in September of next year would also provide ample opportunity for the six-month period of grace for the Electoral Commission to carry out its due diligence. Finally on the argument for September, as has been mentioned, in 1997 we held two referendums in September in Scotland and Wales, very successfully with excellent turnout and a seamless process. That followed, in particular, a constitutional convention in Scotland, in which I know you played an active role, Mr Hood.

The Deputy Prime Minister claims that the idea of fair votes is what motivates the referendum, but it now appears that, shamefully, the Liberal Democrats in government will act unfairly in order to try to achieve their ends. It is not too late for the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government to do the right thing: to listen to the united voice of Labour, nationalist and Unionist politicians across the United Kingdom and accept the rational and fair date for the referendum.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

First, that is precisely the position now, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Secondly, he is viewing the Bill through a prism of—how can I put it?—suspicion, which really is not justified. It gives new powers to the House, and I hope that he will come to that view himself as it is examined on the Floor of the House, as it should be. The Bill is giving new powers to the House in addition to the powers of no confidence that do not already exist, which we are also strengthening in turn.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that if, God forbid, our friends and Liberals were to walk away from the coalition and if the Bill were passed, there is no doubt that our Prime Minister could call an immediate election? Is there any doubt about that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

I am quite sure. I was in favour of September sittings and my hon. Friend will recall that they had to be abandoned one year so that the screen in the Chamber could be put up. When I tabled a motion the following year as Leader of the House to reinstate September sittings I was roundly voted down by an all-party alliance, including many Conservative Members. Both parties in the coalition are probably now regretting this September sitting, because it has done them absolutely no good. Long may that continue.

[Mr Leigh]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Straw]

Of course, and then I need to come on to one or two reasons why I think that the Bill needs to be changed.

[Mr Leigh]

The right hon. Gentleman is being very unfair to our Liberal friends. Does he share my understanding that, if there were a crisis and the Liberals had to walk out of the coalition, the Conservative Prime Minister would be prevented from calling an election if the Bill had become law? If the Liberals were then to offer to join a coalition with the right hon. Gentleman, would he embrace them tenderly?

[Mr Straw]

I am not going to get into too many hypotheticals, but it is a matter of public record that, speaking personally, I was not too keen on the embrace when it was offered on or about 8 May. The hon. Gentleman might wish to take some comfort from that for the future. Aside from anything else, he should do the arithmetic as to whether there could be some stability from such a coalition.

As others want to speak, let me come to the crucial issue of whether the fixed term should be five years or four years. Most constitutional experts are agreed that four years is a more appropriate fixed term and would better reflect the constitutional position, historical practice and comparisons with other Parliaments. Professor Robert Blackburn has said:

“In the UK, there can be little doubt that the period between general elections should be four years...It was the period expressly approved of as being normal in practice, when the Parliament Act set the period of five years as the maximum.”