Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Mark Durkan

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

I will probably differ in some emphasis and some recollection from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), but I wish to begin on a point of absolute harmony, in offering thanks to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) and all the members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, who tilled this hard ground over quite some time, some years ago. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury has rightly been generous in acknowledging the role played by his colleague, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), and I will do so, too.

The devolving of corporation tax to Northern Ireland has not always been the point of constant unanimity that it appears to be today. People did have different approaches and different concerns about it; back when we were negotiating the Belfast agreement or Good Friday agreement some of us wanted fiscal discretion as part of the devolved package, whereas most parties did not. My party was in the very small minority of those that did, and we were particularly clear about the corporation tax side of things. When we did get our institutions up and running, some of us argued the need for devolving corporation tax so that we could do more to maximise the north-south potential for inward investment on the island of Ireland, but many people resisted that idea of working with the south on inward investment. For that same reason, those people were very iffy about the idea of devolving corporation tax, as they felt that somehow it was going to separate Northern Ireland from the Union and be a chink in Unionism. I am very glad that, because of a variety of different experiences, positions have adjusted and moved on in that regard.

Reference has been made to the Varney review. When Sir David Varney was conducting the review of corporation tax issues under the previous Government, he made it clear that he was hearing different views from different parties in Northern Ireland and, in particular, from different Departments and from different Ministers. In fairness to the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), he acknowledged that at times he had different views and different emphases on this issue, as it is understandable that a Minister of Finance and Personnel would have. I served in that office—I see that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) is in his place, too—so I am conscious of the fact that cautionary pieces of advice need to come from that office about what some of the consequences might be. When I was in that post, I used to tell people that as the Minister of Finance and Personnel I did not suffer from depression but I was a carrier. So I can accept that Ministers of Finance and Personnel perhaps did need to sound some cautionary note, but this seemed to go beyond those Ministers; I am glad that we now have a much stronger position on the devolution of corporation tax.

We also need to be clear that the devolution of corporation tax does not put the north—does not put the Assembly—on a par with the corporation tax powers of the Oireachtas. Although it allows the Assembly to set the rates for certain qualifying businesses, it does not allow it to decide who the qualifying businesses are, and the Assembly has no control over any of the other rules that attach to that. The Oireachtas has a very different arrangement. Even when moves are made in the Oireachtas on the “double Irish” situation, which are long overdue and right, we also see a targeted use of things. A bit like this Government’s use of the patent box, the Irish Government have introduced the knowledge box. So there are other ways in which they are going to target competitiveness, and incentivise particular industries and sectors.

That is one issue I wish to address at this point in examining the overall impact of the Bill, because too often the focus in Northern Ireland has been that devolving corporation tax would allow us better to compete with the south. We need to recognise that the competition landscape within these islands has changed. I acknowledge that a regional economic dynamic has been provided under this Government, through initiatives such as enterprise zones, city deals and growth deals, which are creating some drive, regional economic traction and city economic traction. If Northern Ireland relies just on corporation tax and does not look to some of those other tools that are helping to drive regional and local economic growth, we will lose out.

I represent a city where many people go to work across the border for companies that are benefiting from the 12.5% corporation tax rate. That proximity—this is in our travel-to-work area—does not mitigate the fact that my constituency has the highest registered unemployment of all the 650 constituencies represented in this House, which shows that a reduced corporation tax rate alone is not a magic bullet and does not solve everything. As has been said, including by the hon. Member for North Antrim, the south of Ireland’s approach is not just about corporation tax alone; it is about investment in infrastructure and in education, not least in third-level education. Even this week, as we see that the Irish Government’s revenues are up and things are shifting there, and they are looking at and talking about possibly adjusting the spending and tax profile, the Tanaiste, Joan Burton, is emphasising that if money can now be spent, it has to be focused on infrastructure and on education, particularly at the third level.

We see that emphasis in the south, but not in the north. We need to recognise that, with regard to the Stormont House agreement and the wider landscape, all that glisters is not gold. The fact is that the Assembly and the Executive will have a difficult Budget landscape over a number of years and there will be a price on the block grant. That was touched on by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) when she referred to the letter from the Treasury to the Bill Committee—unfortunately, it arrived after the Bill Committee had completed its considerations. The letter, while reflecting the fact that negotiations with the Executive are ongoing, sets out a number of changes that will need to be made to the funding arrangements of Northern Ireland. I am talking about how the block grant will be set and how the Barnett formula will operate. More time needs to be taken to consider those wider consequentials and the implications for the devolved Budget.

In the Stormont House negotiations, I did question why we were not discussing the implications of a corporation tax rate cut or what the implications would be for the block grant. I was told by the First Minister that the rate cut was not an issue, that it would be modest and graduated and that it did not really need to come into our wider discussions about the strong budgetary pressures we were under. But that does not seem to be the case. His understanding and his reassurances were not reflected in the terms outlined by the Treasury Minister in the Bill Committee or in this letter and its attachments. There was an assumption that there would be a gradual working adjustment. In other words, there would not be a full hit in relation to the devolved envelope. But the Minister, both in Committee and in the letter, made it clear that the hit would be up front.

I joined the hon. Member for East Antrim—I understand that his absence is to do with the unfortunate bereavement experienced by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—in questioning the arrangements. We asked about the working implications of the Executive’s Budget year on year and of the setting of the block grant. We wanted to know whether adjustments would have to be made to reflect higher or lower tax takes. In the letter from the Minister, which was sent on 16 February, we see that those adjustments may be made two or three years later, whenever the full tax yield is made. That creates uncertainty. Given that corporation tax is, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out, sometimes volatile, there could be further implications that we should acknowledge. We should not say that we do not understand them or that they were someone else’s fault. We need to go into these things with our eyes open.

Let me turn now to the wider position of the Executive in relation to the operation of corporation tax. Under the Bill, the Treasury retains not just ownership of all the rule-making and interpretive powers, but the commencement power in relation to corporation tax. We know that the timetable is 2017, but, as we heard from the Minister in Committee, the Government will exercise that commencement power when they are satisfied that the Executive has a sustainable Budget.

Over the past couple of years, the Treasury has made it very clear that it judged the sustainability of the Executive’s Budget on whether the Assembly would pass welfare reform legislation. That legislation may not have been to the Assembly’s taste or of a devolved design, but they would have to pass it as a way of proving that they had a sustainable Budget. In 2017, the issue will be whether the Treasury will use that same power to impose policy choices on the Executive. In the Bill Committee, I specifically asked the Minister that question. Let us take the example of water charges. We know that the Executive have consistently tried to prevail on the Administration in Northern Ireland to move to direct water charges in one form or another. When I was a Minister, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Paul Boateng, wrote to us at the Executive twice, asking that we make that commitment. The Executive, on my proposal, refused to do that. Various other ruses have been attempted. During the period of direct rule, Northern Ireland Water was essentially set up on a conveyor belt to privatisation. The question is whether the Treasury would abuse that power and say, “Just like we used to say that you had a sustainable Budget only when you had absorbed what we wanted you to do on welfare reform, we are saying now that you only have a sustainable Budget when we see you levying water charges, raising revenue in other areas or changing your policy in relation to student finances.” It could be linked again to welfare reform. After all, we are now locked into a welfare cap. Luckily, we are being given a lot of leeway in how the welfare cap operates at the minute. If the truth be told, the deal that was reached on welfare reform as part of the Stormont House agreement—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I will say to the hon. Gentleman the same as I said to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who spoke immediately before him: I have not been very strict in keeping him to the exact words of the Bill, but, as he knows very well, he is beginning to stray a little. I trust that, in concluding, he will address precisely the points in the Bill that relate to Third Reading.

[Mark Durkan]

I am sticking very much to the thrust and the purpose of the Bill. The Bill is presented as part of a suite of measures coming from the Stormont House agreement. That suite of measures included issues in relation to welfare reform. After all, we were told that there would be no Corporation Tax Bill unless there was agreement on welfare reform, so what I am saying is entirely consistent. Ministers have referred to these other measures when they have addressed this Bill, as have other hon. Members. The point goes to something that is in the Bill, which is the control that the Treasury will have over the commencement of this power and whether it uses that to impose other policy choices on the Assembly. Given that the welfare cap will be in place in the next Parliament—if it is supported both by the Government and the Opposition—it could well be a part of the working reference of the Treasury when it comes to make a judgment on Budget sustainability. In fairness, the Minister made the point in Committee that the judgment would be made on the sum of the Executive’s Budget parts and on a range of issues, but not on specific measures. He would not rule out it being used in that way. Again, in terms of due legislative diligence, all of us must have regard to how this might operate in practice. I am talking about not just some of the detailed rules as they affect businesses but how the overall Budgetary situation of the Executive is affected. There is no point in our popping corks about the legislative power over corporation tax that the Executive and the Assembly will have if we are not also alert to the very real budget constraints and the hard choices that might be imposed with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Interventions are meant to be short. The hon. Lady has already spoken. It is perfectly in order for her to make an intervention, but it must be short, especially as she has, quite rightly, taken up the House’s time this afternoon. I politely indicated to the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor that he might consider drawing his remarks to a close. He chose to argue with me on the points I had made. I will speak less politely to him if he does not adhere to what I have said. He has spoken for a considerable time this afternoon. He is in order. He has the opportunity to conclude his speech. I am not saying that he must finish immediately now, but I am sure that he will give thought to other people in the Chamber.

[Mark Durkan]

I have no wish to argue with you now, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I must say that I was not arguing with you previously. I was simply clarifying the position and the background, as you have not had the privilege of sitting through all the debates on what was deemed relevant to the Bill and the wider Stormont House agreement.

The Executive and the Assembly will have to absorb the Bill’s wider implications. There are implications for the economy and for businesses, too. We have heard from many hon. Members that businesses are well seized of the need to try to take advantage of that. We have no problem with the regime on the balance between the rates and the rules, but we want to ensure that there is no undue assumption that the devolution of corporation tax to Northern Ireland alone will transform our economy. We need more investment in infrastructure and higher education and following the decisions in the Stormont House agreement it is not clear whether our borrowing power, which was originally designed for strategic capital, is now being used to pay for a voluntary exit scheme. There is an opportunity cost as regards the wider economic investments.

I do not wish to use the term long-term economic plan, but without addressing some of the other issues, including providing tools that compare with city deals, growth deals, enterprise zones and so on, and without a new level of commitment on third-level education and infrastructure, the Executive might well be getting the novelty of devolved corporation tax without strategic economic perspectives that are other than short term in nature.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy and for not arguing with me.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Mark Durkan

Friday 12th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask whether it is appropriate for the House to reflect on the sad news of the death of Lord Bannside, who served in this House for so many years, with such character and colour, as the Rev. Ian Paisley? Hon. Members will know that, belonging to a different party, I had many differences over the years with Ian Paisley and with his views and stances. However, in all the dealings I and everybody else had with him, he was a man of considerable personal grace. He was also someone who, in spite of the fact that he opposed agreements and institutions, actually came to a position where he helped to ensure that we have a settled process, and even more agreement on those arrangements and institutions. I know that the members of his own party—the party he founded—are, unfortunately, not able to be here today. I want to express my condolences to them. Because the House is going into recess, we will not have the normal opportunity that may have arisen for hon. Members to pay their respects. I do not wish to interrupt or impede the important debate on the Bill of the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore), and if there is one thing I know about Ian Paisley, in terms of his sympathetic world view, it is that he would not wish the Bill to be impeded by how the House responds to this sad news.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the point of order and for bringing this very sad news to the House. The death of Lord Bannside—known in this House for many years as the hon. Member for North Antrim, the Rev. Ian Paisley—will be a great loss to Parliament and to the political body as a whole. He was a man of great principle: a big parliamentary personality in every way. He was always kind, and always ready with a witty and amusing word to lighten a dark hour. He will be greatly missed in this House, in the other place and generally. I am sure that the House will wish to give its sympathy and thoughts to his son, the current hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), and the rest of the Paisley family.

Shrewsbury 24 (Release of Papers)

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Mark Durkan

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members should accept that the question whether the remaining papers that have not been released to the National Archives should be revealed is a pertinent one. In debating, as we are, the issues surrounding the cases, particularly two of the cases, it is highly relevant to question whether the papers should be revealed.

Before I was interrupted, I was quoting Mr Justice Mais, the trial judge. He went on to tell the six people before him:

“Some of you were clearly determined to strike terror in the hearts of those who continued to work.”

That was a very serious crime indeed. Furthermore, the case went to appeal and, to quote The Times editorial of 20 December 1974, the Court of Appeal judge said:

“There was at each site a terrifying display by pickets of force and violence actually committed or threatened against buildings, plant and equipment; at some sites, if not at others, acts of personal violence and threats of violence to the person were committed and made. Persons working on the sites and residents near by were put in fear.”

That should not be tolerated in our country, and it should not be supported by Opposition Members.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The hon. Gentleman has quoted the Court of Appeal judge. He was the same judge on whose verdict the hon. Gentleman relied for many years in resisting the case for a new inquiry into Bloody Sunday and so on. Is he confident that his reliance on Widgery today—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. In interventions as well as speeches, hon. Members will stick to the matter before us. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman may make his point, but he must refer to the matter before us, from which he was straying very considerably.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Mark Durkan

Monday 18th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3,  clause 6, page 6, line 37, at end add—

‘7B The alteration of the number of members of the Assembly required to express their concern about a matter which is to be voted on by the Assembly, such concern requiring that the vote on that matter shall require cross-community support.

This paragraph does not include the alteration of that number to a number exceeding 30.”.’.

Amendment 4,  clause 22, page 16, line 3, at end insert—

‘(1) After subsection (2) of the section 75 (Statutory duty on public authorities) of that Act insert—

(2A) A public authority shall not interpret its obligations under subsection (2) in a way that is incompatible with measures taken on the basis of objective need.”

(1B) In subsection (5) of section 75 of that Act insert ““good relations” shall be interpreted in line with international obligations and, in particular, with regard to—

(a) tackling prejudice, and

(b) promoting understanding.”.’.

This amendment would apply to Northern Ireland, the clarification provided in the Equality Act 2010 to restrict the good relation duty being cited against fulfilling equality obligations based on objective need.

[Mark Durkan]

The new clause and amendments are intended to return the position to what was intended in the Good Friday, or Belfast, agreement of 1998. New clause 2 seeks to reflect properly what was in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the strand 1 paper, which provide for a petition of concern in respect of a measure or a proposal in the Assembly. Those paragraphs make it clear that the petition of concern was not meant to be used as an open veto to be played like a joker at any time.

The position relating to the petition is qualified in the agreement, but unfortunately that was not reflected in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. In the initial Bill, there was no reflection whatsoever of the true provisions of paragraphs 11 to 13. When some of us pointed that out, the Northern Ireland Office “scrambled in” a measure stating that the Assembly’s Standing Orders should make provision for the procedures outlined in those paragraphs, but unfortunately the Standing Orders never did make that provision. They ended up providing for a petition of concern which could be signed by 30 Members, and that automatically became a dead-end veto: end of story.

This new clause seeks to remind people that the Good Friday agreement said that those issuing a petition of concern would have the opportunity to prove they had a legitimate concern on grounds either of equality or human rights and that those grounds would be tested by a special committee that would be established in the Assembly to report on the matter. We worked that out very painstakingly during the negotiations because people were concerned that a petition of concern might simply become a drive-by veto, as it were, on any issue going forward or even being tabled, which could lead to gridlock with tit-for-tat vetoes and petitions of concern. The then leader of the Alliance party, now Lord Alderdice, spoke very strongly in the negotiations about his concern that we should not have just an open-ended free-for-all system of vetoes.

The notion of having petitions of concern is rightly in the agreement, not least because having protections around decision-making mechanisms was a key part of the rules in the negotiations that led to the agreement, and, therefore, if it was essential in the rules that led to the agreement, it would be essential in the agreement itself. The particular model of protections had to be carefully balanced and calibrated, however.

The balance we came up with was that there could be a petition of concern, but it would not of itself be a veto. Unfortunately, the system as it is now practised does turn the petition of concern into a veto. That has meant that many matters in Northern Ireland end up not progressing, and some are not even tabled at the Executive or in the Assembly because the veto is now also used as a predictive veto, to prevent issues from being tabled and to hold things up in discussion within the bowels of government somewhere.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Mark Durkan

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Laing]

Let me explain further. The Select Committee rushed through its pre-legislative scrutiny process, because of the timetable for the publication of the Bill, Second Reading and Committee. Inevitably, the Select Committee had to take evidence and consider matters quickly and briefly. It is important that the issues considered by the Select Committee are put before the Committee. I have every confidence that the Minister will assure the Committee in due course that he and his colleagues have considered all the points made in the pre-legislative scrutiny report by the Select Committee.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

This is not about subsection (2)(b). If it would assist the hon. Lady in arguing against her own amendment, does she recognise that other amendments that she has tabled, such as amendment 37, if accepted, would create a serious problem in relation to amendment 33? That rests on the Prime Minister discharging a particular function, whereas under amendment 37 there could be circumstances in which there was no Prime Minister to discharge that function.

[Mrs Laing]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is right. We will debate amendment 37 in the next group, and I am sure I will be called to order if I go into the details of it at this point.

Once again, I am not seeking, and the Select Committee was not seeking, to put forward a coherent succession of amendments in an attempt to change the Bill. I want to make sure that the Committee has an opportunity, as it has now had, to consider the issues of exclusive cognisance and the way in which the Standing Orders of the House will be affected by the Bill. That is why I hope the Committee’s Chairman will excuse my arguing against myself, while putting the points that the Select Committee wished to make here. It is important that the results of the pre-legislative scrutiny that we undertook should be put before the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Laing]

Yes, the shadow Minister is correct. I am sure the Minister will have very good responses to these questions when he replies, but it is important that the House addresses them, and that is why the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has tabled these amendments as a result of its pre-legislative scrutiny report.

Amendment 36 would, in essence, encourage the incumbent Government to keep the House sitting, and not use the prerogative power of prorogation for purposes for which it should not be used.

Amendment 37 reflects the Committee’s findings that the Bill still leaves to unwritten convention the requirement that a Government should resign if they lose the confidence of the House. The Deputy Prime Minister said to the House in July this year that the Bill would

“strengthen the power of this House to throw out a Government through a motion of no confidence”—[Official Report, 5 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 32.]

However, although that might have been the Deputy Prime Minister’s intention, the Bill does not do that. Amendment 37 would require the Prime Minister to resign within seven days of a motion of no confidence being passed, and to advise the Queen to appoint a new Prime Minister who had the best chance of securing the House’s confidence.

The Government’s response to the Committee’s report appears to show that they do not intend that an incumbent Government faced with a successful vote of no confidence should be required to resign. The response states:

“A Government is able now, and would be able under the Bill, to remain in office after a no confidence motion and contest a general election.”

That is a very serious state of affairs. The Committee carefully examined the consequences of the Bill before putting that in its report, but the fact is that the Bill will allow a Government to remain in office after a no confidence motion and to contest a general election.

That raises a number of constitutional questions, and I wish to put four to the Minister. First, do the Government intend that the incumbent Government should be able to force an early general election following a vote of no confidence even where an alternative Government with a potential majority in the House are clearly waiting in the wings?

My second question relates to a matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) referred to: have the Government considered that an incumbent Government might engineer a vote of no confidence in themselves, requiring only a simple majority, and then simply sit it out for two weeks to force an early general election? Once again, although I have every confidence that the current Government and the Minister at the Dispatch Box would not behaviour dishonourably, the Bill gives a future Government the power to do that.

As I mentioned in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, some Members of the Canadian Parliament raised this issue at a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference held here last week. There is a constitutional difficulty in Canada at the moment, because more than one vote of confidence has been held at the instigation of the Government. My hon. Friend said that he is not particularly interested in examples from other countries, and I agree that just because something happens in Canada does not mean that it will happen here. However, Canada’s constitution and Government are constructed similarly to ours and we ought to learn lessons or at least look at the warning signs from a place whose legislature is so similar.

Thirdly, have the Government considered that an incumbent Prime Minister whose party has narrowly lost a general election might refuse to resign and instead choose to face the House of Commons, as Stanley Baldwin did in January 1924—the shadow Minister referred to that—and as the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) could, in theory, have done this May? A vote of no confidence in those circumstances would give the incumbent Prime Minister the choice of either resigning or forcing another general election.

An incumbent Prime Minister would not be able to exercise that choice at the moment, because the convention is that the monarch, under her existing prerogative powers, would almost certainly not agree to dissolve Parliament so soon after an election where there was a viable alternative Government. Nevertheless, the Bill, as drafted, would leave the question open, and it is our duty as a Parliament not to put the monarch under pressure to make a decision; we should never have a situation where the monarch has to exercise her prerogative power in order to keep the incumbent Prime Minister in line, as it were.

This is another matter that could easily be dealt with by amendment 37, which states:

“Where the House of Commons passes a motion of no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government, the Prime Minister shall tender his resignation to Her Majesty within a period of seven days of the motion being passed.”

The amendment is quite simple and, again, is not intended to run a coach and horses through the Bill—far from it. As I have said on many occasions, I support the Bill and I want it to go through, because it is necessary for the stability of the Government and of the coalition at a time when we need stability. What the Select Committee is trying to do through these amendments is simply assist the Government to improve the Bill.

My final question to the Minister is on how the Bill strengthens the power of the House to throw out a Government by a motion of no confidence. The Select Committee considered that question as carefully as we could in the time given for pre-legislative scrutiny and there is a general opinion that the Bill does not strengthen the power of the House to throw out a Government on a motion of no confidence. I would argue, however, that the House has at present a pretty good power that it can exercise to throw out a Government on a motion of no confidence. I do not believe that the Bill strengthens that position and the Deputy Prime Minister ought not to say that it does when it does not.

[Mark Durkan]

With the exception of amendment 5, the amendments basically try to make the Bill more complete and more cogent by ensuring that there is less ambiguity about convention. That is particularly the case with amendment 25, which would remove from the Prime Minister and the Whips the ability to whisper confidence and no confidence in people’s ears, to play the question like a joker that is wild and to use it in relation to any issue that is uncomfortable for the Government or on which Back Benchers are exercising their consciences and discretion.

I gave the example in an intervention earlier of the way in which that process was used with the then Counter-Terrorism Bill. Labour MPs who had said that they would vote in good conscience against 42-day detention were prevailed on with the threat of its being a matter of confidence or no confidence. The then Prime Minister said to me that he would not even table a motion of no confidence if he lost that vote, but that he would deem it to be a vote of no confidence and would go straight away. In the first conversation, he said that the vote would have been followed by a no confidence motion but later on, he said that he would not even bother with a no confidence motion and would go straight to an election. I know that that threat brought some Back Benchers into line and they voted against their consciences and against their stated intentions.

If we are serious about altering the balance of the powers in the hands of the Executive and the Whips, we should support amendment 25, which states that a no confidence motion for the purposes of the Bill must explicitly be a no confidence motion in either the Prime Minister or the Government. Making it clear and explicit in those terms removes the ambiguity and bullying element and restores clarity.

The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) has made strong arguments for amendments 36 and 37. They would remove possible ambiguity and abuse as well as a lot of confusion and speculation that might arise about otherwise serious circumstances. I commend all those amendments to the Committee.

Another virtue of amendment 25 is that it would go some way to mitigating many of the concerns about the Speaker’s certificate and the challenges and questions that might be raised about it, which are legitimately the subject of subsequent amendments. Because I care for the issues raised by those subsequent amendments, I would make the point that amendment 25 is relevant in containing the problems with the Speaker’s certificate that they aim to address.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Mark Durkan

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Laing]

I see the hon. Gentleman’s point. However, the logic and arithmetic of that is that it does of course happen, but it pretty well cancels itself out from one constituency to the next. People often, for various reasons and quite legitimately, register in more than one place, but the fact that it happens all over the country cancels it out.

[Mark Durkan]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Laing]

No, I cannot prolong this part of the debate. I am aware that there is very little time and there are a lot of matters to be discussed.

All the other parts of this debate have been froth: the only thing that matters is that in a modern democracy every vote should have an equal value, and every Member of Parliament should come to this House with an equal number of constituents behind them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

I rise to speak to amendments 194 and 195. Before I address them specifically, however, I shall comment on one of the amendments tabled by members of the Select Committee, with which I have a fair degree of sympathy. I must express my slight reservation, however, about the wording of proposed new subsection A2(a) in amendment 205. I am worried that, by asking a boundary commission to publish the criteria it would use in the splitting of wards, we could end up inviting the commission to split wards more than we want. The Bill proposes that wards should not be split, and I think that most Members agree that local government boundaries should not be split. I am worried that that proposal could result in more wards being split than people would want. I would still support that amendment on a vote, however.

Amendment 195 deals with the Government resisting all attempts to keep local inquiries as a general option. Under my proposal, at least Northern Ireland would be allowed the option of holding a general regional inquiry in relation to all the seats in Northern Ireland. This proposal is a fall-back measure.

I want to make it clear that I absolutely support the amendments that would preserve the opportunity of holding local inquiries throughout the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) made a powerful speech in support of preserving inquiries and their important role. I know that other colleagues will propose other amendments to preserve inquiries.

I thought that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) was quite disparaging about the role of inquiries, submissions and contributions to inquiries. First, where political parties make shallow, self-serving submissions about boundaries and where specious and spurious claims of local identity and local interests are made, there is no better way of exposing them than local inquiries. By their very nature, local inquiries expose, counter and introduce other realities.

The hon. Lady’s speech was about the rule of arithmetic, and I agree that this is what the Bill is about—the tyranny of arithmetic for boundaries in the future. She says that it does not matter. For her, traditions do not matter; local conditions do not matter; identity does not matter; community does not matter—it is all going to be driven by a numerical imperative that says “one size fits all” and nothing else can be considered. An official of the European Commission would be proud of that mindset. It is exactly the mindset that the hon. Lady usually criticises in the European Commission. As well as backing the “IPSA-fication” of boundaries in the future, she is now backing a European Commission standard that says, “No, we just deal in numerical arithmetic; we see only one size fitting all; we make no concession to local realities or local conditions.”

[Mrs Laing]

I rise to defend myself, because that is not at all what I said. On the contrary, communities and local traditions are very important. It is important to have a parish council representing a village and to have Cornishmen feeling Cornish and caring about Cornwall—nobody is changing Cornwall. It is very important to respect local history and the feelings of local communities. That is not reflected in the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies. There are many other ways in which those traditions and communities are respected, observed and upheld. It is not in the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies—

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Mark Durkan

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Laing]

I agree in principle with everything the hon. Lady says, but I would argue that three years is quite sufficient time for the Boundary Commission to undertake the task before it. The decision on the principle of the work going ahead can be taken in the Chamber over these few weeks of discussions on the Bill, and three years is quite long enough for the commission to do its work. The hon. Lady agrees with me on the principle of equalisation. Once a principle is established, it ought to be put into practice as soon as possible. Three years is plenty of time.

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Lady says that 600 is a reasonable figure in the same way that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority asserts that the figures it comes up with are reasonable. The problem is the rigid application of that reasonable figure, which will give rise to all sorts of problems and contradictions for which this House will be blamed.

[Mrs Laing]

I have been insulted many times in this Chamber, but I have never, ever been compared with IPSA before. I entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. There is proper consultation. Opposition Members speak as if the Boundary Commission is not involved in the process, but it is, and it has three years to do its job. It is perfectly capable of doing that job. The resources are in place and there is no problem.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Mark Durkan

Monday 13th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Laing]

It is a great pleasure.

There is no harm in being honest about matters in the Chamber. The measure is entitled “Fixed-term Parliaments Bill”, but no Parliament can bind its successors. The measure is really “The date of the next election (cementing the coalition) Bill”. That is what it is for, and I support it for that purpose, but we should not pretend that it is for any other purpose. It has many practical advantages, which are obvious and have been debated well this evening. The stability of the coalition and of the Government to get this country out of the dreadful economic mess in which the Labour Government left us requires such a Bill if we are to make progress.

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Lady suggests that the Bill relates strongly to the coalition, but it is foreseeable that the coalition could dissolve, but not Parliament, so we would be in a twilight zone.

[Mrs Laing]

That is exactly the point that I am about to make. We are discussing the transfer of power, and the Bill brings about the transfer of immense power to the person of the Deputy Prime Minister. As the hon. Gentleman has just said, the arithmetic shows that the 14-day process could be instigated under the Bill. It is perfectly possible that as early as next spring the Liberal Democrat party could decide not to support the Conservative party in coalition. We could go into the 14-day period, and a coalition could be formed by the Labour party, all the other Opposition parties, and the Liberal Democrat party. There could be a completely new Government without our consulting the electorate. That could happen in the foreseeable future, although I sincerely hope that it does not. I do not think that it is likely, but the arithmetic means that it is possible, and we must be aware of that as we introduce the Bill.