Proxy Voting

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Bob Blackman

Thursday 13th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who has led this debate from the beginning. I pay tribute to her for her work not only on this issue but on other transformational issues that she has raised in order to reform the House of Commons. I did not participate in the debate on 1 February, but I listened to all the contributions from Members across the House, and I have served as a member of the Procedure Committee under the excellent chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), sat through all the evidence sessions and participated in the discussions leading up to the excellent report that we have produced.

It is fair to say that the contribution from the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) has drawn the attention of the House to the difference between a new mother and a new father, and to the reason why a new mother will need to be absent from the House for far longer than a new father. The Procedure Committee looked at several issues, including parental leave not only for mothers and fathers but for newly adoptive parents. I think it was the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) who drew our attention to the need for newly adoptive parents to be able to bond with their children, particularly as they are not the natural birth parents. It is important that those actions can be taken during those early stages.

The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham talked about the duty of individuals to come and vote in this House. That is quite clearly why we are elected. Up to now, the principle has always been that an individual MP had to be present in the Chamber, or on the estate if they were incapacitated, where their vote could be counted. We are now considering whether we should change that fundamental principle. Having sat through all the evidence, I completely understand the case for changing it, but we should remember that the Procedure Committee did only what the House asked us to do, which was to look at the issue of baby leave for new parents. That is why we need to be slightly cautious here. This is a debate on the principle of proxy voting in general, as well as on the specific issue of baby leave, and we need to look at how things have changed.

The fundamental issue involved is a Member’s right to vote in this House on his or her views. I would probably go to the ends of the earth to oppose the principle that the Whips should take over a Member’s right to vote. I almost always vote with my party, but not always, and I defend my right as a Member to stand up for my constituents, as opposed to just my party. I would therefore absolutely oppose any proposal that the Chief Whip or any other Whip could go through the Lobby and cast a vote on my behalf. If we are going to introduce these changes, the fundamental principle has to be that it is not the Whips who determine which way a vote should be cast.

Mention has been made about whether a Member casting a proxy vote should be present in the Chamber to observe all or part of the debate before voting, and whether they will know what they are voting for. It is for individual Members to ensure that they are informed as to what they are voting on and how they vote. That is their job. From that perspective, it is not necessary for someone to be in the Chamber listening to every single word that is uttered in a debate before they come to a conclusion and cast their vote accordingly. It is therefore equally possible for a Member to watch the parliamentary channel remotely and then instruct someone to vote on their behalf in a particular way. That is perfectly reasonable with new technology. However, we need to consider some precautions. If we are going to make a change, it should enable new parents, new mothers in particular, to exercise their vote, but there should be no unintended consequences.

I completely agree with the Procedure Committee’s report, which says that proxy votes should not be used at all in matters such as counting towards the quorum, a closure motion or other technical votes. We need to consider the circumstances in which proxy votes should apply. When the measure is introduced—I look to the Leader of the House to propose how it should operate—it should be done in such a way that we can review the process after, say, 12 months to ensure that we have not introduced unintended consequences or other problems.

[Emma Reynolds]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, and I know that he has given the matter a lot of thought. Several hon. Members have mentioned unintended consequences, so will he spell out what he is talking about there?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, and I will come on to the unintended consequences.

When individuals seek to exercise their right to vote, we have to decide whether proxy votes should be allowed on all votes or just certain votes. For example, what if an individual is absent because they are on maternity or paternity leave and an important private Member’s Bill comes up on a Friday? We know that few Members attend such debates on Fridays, even though everyone has the right to do so, so should proxy votes apply on those days? Equally, what happens if the appointed proxy says, “I’m not going to be in the House that day.” There could therefore be unintended consequences for private Members’ Bills.

Similarly, Thursdays tend to be Backbench Business days. Debates are not always well attended, and the motions rarely lead to votes, so should proxy votes apply to Backbench Business debates, which can be quite different, perhaps relating to matters of conscience, for example? We also have debates that are definitely matters of conscience when party Whips do not apply at all, such as House business debates. Should we allow proxy votes in those debates? My view is that we can allow that provided that there are clear, explicit instructions from the individual who is on leave to their proxy, but that could lead to issues of transparency. A proxy could vote for a new mother at home in the way that they expected her to vote, but it could turn out that she did not want her vote cast in that particular way. That would be embarrassing for the individual Member and for the proxy.

We should therefore proceed with a degree of caution. If we introduce proxy voting, it should apply to all Government business, particularly to Second Reading debates and those that are programmed and quite clear. I have a concern about, for example, Report stages or Committees of the whole House. Will a mother with a new baby be considering how to vote? The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire laid out the problems that a new mother can face. Will they be following the debate and instructing their proxy to vote? We could be voting half a dozen times in an afternoon, and we need to make sure that proxies vote in the right way. We should be cautious about these particular circumstances.

[Emma Reynolds]

I will be brief because I will touch on this in my speech. I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about unintended consequences. Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good. I would not have minded if any of those little things had happened when I was on maternity leave, because at least I would have had most of my votes cast. In the current circumstances, none of my votes was cast. I kindly say that I can live with those unintended consequences.

[Bob Blackman]

I understand the hon. Lady’s view that she can live with it. All I am doing is pointing out the consequences that could apply if such a system were introduced.

We should also have a clear position that proxy votes are the Member’s choice—they should not be compulsory in any shape or form—because individuals who want to preserve their privacy may not wish to disclose that they have had a child. However, we should look a bit further than just the principles of maternity and paternity leave. We have to consider the terrible fact that not all pregnancies go to term and, very sadly, mothers lose their babies. We should consider proxy votes for their bereavement and recovery. There is a mixture of problems in those circumstances.

I have also considered the time I had an emergency hospital admission in 2013. I had a life-threatening problem and was admitted to an NHS hospital as a result. I was off from the Queen’s Speech—10 May, to my recollection—until 5 July. My constituents, therefore, did not have my vote cast in this place on 43 occasions.

That was an emergency. I had an emergency operation and a period of convalescence thereafter. I could not walk for much of that time. Walking down the stairs or across the road, or going to a constituency function, was about as far as I could possibly go. I could not come down here to cast my vote.

I was paired with an Opposition Member on all of those occasions, but I have examined some of the lists, and on several occasions I would not have voted with Her Majesty’s Government. My personal vote therefore was not properly recorded on those occasions.

My point is about individual Members who are suffering from a long-term, well-documented illness, where surgeons and doctors expect them to be absent from the House for a period of time. Over the past few years a number of Members have been absent with well-documented, long-term illnesses that were backed up with medical certificates. If we are to introduce proxy voting for any reason at all, we have to take into account individuals with long-term illnesses that are clearly documented—I am not talking about people with a cold, flu or whatever—and who are therefore going to be absent from the House for an extended period of time.

At the moment, as others have said, there is no record of why an individual has not voted, just that they have not voted in a particular Division. Externally, people might be saying, “Is it because you are too lazy? Is it because you can’t be bothered? What is the reason?” We have to look very carefully at the proxy voting arrangements not only for new parents but for Members who are off for extended periods of illness.

I completely oppose the principle of Ministers or other individuals who are on Government business saying, “I’m going to be away on Government business so I need a proxy vote for an extended period.” I oppose that 101%. The slippery slope that the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham talked about is a concern. The way forward is to make sure that we conclude any changes to the way we work in a considered fashion, but we should look not just at certain limited aspects but slightly wider, to make sure that all votes in this House are considered in an appropriate fashion, as Members would wish them to be, but for allowable reasons only.

I come back to the Procedure Committee report and the Standing Orders that we have proposed, which are very limited because they are restricted to the issue of parental leave, as opposed to other issues, one of which I have mentioned and think should be considered and included. It may be that we start by dealing with long-term parental leave and then look at other aspects at a future time, but it is important to consider all the reasons why people are absent from the House through absolutely no fault of their own, so that their votes can be cast or the reasons why they are not cast recorded. Those reasons should be recorded only if they so choose, though, because people who are on long-term absence for other reasons may not wish for that to be disclosed, for all sorts of reasons.

I urge a degree of caution, but also some cautious speed, because having debated this subject on 1 February, we should now get on with the job and get a system into operation so that we can review it after a period of time and make sure that it works for all Members and encourages people to participate in this place.

Homelessness Reduction Bill

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Bob Blackman

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 28th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

For 40 years, we in this House have forced local authorities to ration the help they provide to the homeless.

I looked at what I could do. I served in local government for 24 years and saw at first hand the damage that homelessness can do to ordinary people who, through no fault of their own, lose their homes. I also sit on the Communities and Local Government Committee, which published its inquiry into homelessness in August. The Committee made particular efforts with ex-homeless people and young care leavers, which led directly to the report’s recommendations that form the basis of the Bill.

The aim of the Bill is to prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place and to prevent people from ever having to sleep rough. In case anyone misunderstands the extent of homelessness, rough sleeping has doubled since 2010. It was up 30% last year alone, with 3,569 people reported as sleeping rough on any one night in 2014. In London, 8,096 people slept rough at some point in 2015-16, an increase of 7% from 2014-15. Last year, 112,330 people in England made a homelessness application, a 26% rise since 2009-10, with 54,430 accepted as homeless and in need of assistance.

If we combat homelessness at an early stage before it becomes a crisis, we will save money in the long run for local authorities. Research commissioned by Crisis, based on in-depth interviews with 86 people who have experienced homelessness, estimates that £742,141 of public money was spent on 86 cases during a 90-day period of homelessness. Overall public spending would fall by £370 million if 40,000 people were prevented from experiencing one year of homelessness, based on an average reduction in public spending of £9,266 per person a year.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing the Bill, which I fully support. On prevention, does he agree that in Wales the Labour Government have introduced measures very similar to those in the Bill? They are starting to work. Unlike in England, homelessness is dropping. He talks about a false economy. The Welsh Government have put money up front to deal with this issue, but I am sure they will save money in the long run.

[Bob Blackman]

I will come on to the situation in Wales in a moment.

The anticipated savings will include direct savings to local authority homelessness teams. Drawing on the lessons from Wales, which the hon. Lady rightly raises, academics commissioned by Crisis estimate that a projected 20% increase in prevention and relief activity could produce an additional cost of £43.9 million, but that that would be offset by a £46.8 million reduction in spending on people who are already homeless. That is partly due to reductions in the use of temporary accommodation and a greater focus on preventing homelessness. Over time, this should reduce the number of people who lose their home in the first place. This would require more intensive support through either a relief duty or an offer of settled accommodation under the main duty of homelessness.

The Bill should also make savings for other public bodies. Research by Crisis into the cost savings of prevention and relief duties in England suggest that in just six months we could save £2.88 million for the criminal justice system and £1.2 million to £3.8 million for the national health service, including over £500,000 of savings for accident and emergency departments alone. What we know is that people who are sleeping rough are far more likely to suffer from respiratory diseases and they have to use the NHS repeatedly.

In Wales, the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 came into force on 27 April 2015—a great day, the one after my birthday. The experience gained from that legislation has helped to inform measures in the Bill in certain areas. Wales has seen a 69% reduction in the number of households owed the main homelessness duty, with only 1,563 households owed the main homelessness duty in the first year of the new prevention and relief duties. In the first year, 7,128 households were provided with prevention assistance, of which 4,599, or 65%, had a successful outcome. Temporary accommodation has fallen by 16% in Wales since the introduction of the new duties, saving £697,980. In London, which accounts for 72% of temporary accommodation, even half that reduction would save some £37 million.