Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

I profoundly disagree with the Government’s timetable for the boundaries and AV referendum Bill, but, given the time scale involved, it is at least understandable why they judge it necessary to push the legislation through. The Bill before us is on fixed-term Parliaments, however, and there is not the least prospect of an early general election at any time in the next three years.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is being slightly disingenuous. Is not the most obvious reason why the Bill is here, before us, that the coalition partners are worried that the other one will welsh out?

[Mr Straw]

Of course. I was going to come on to that, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for leading me down that path. There is no reason to rush through legislation for a fixed-term Parliament, because, even if we do not have the Bill, there is no prospect of a general election being called, in almost any circumstances, within the next three years.

The Liberal Democrat and Labour parties were committed by their manifestos to the principle of a fixed-term Parliament, but the Conservatives’ proposal ran directly counter to that, because it stated that a general election should be called within six months of any change of Prime Minister, meaning that, if the Prime Minister had suddenly passed away or something else had happened to him and he was no longer in office, we could have had a general election within a twelvemonth.

We know, however, that the structure of the Bill and the rush derive not from the pursuit of a sensible idea for which there is all-party support, but from narrow, partisan reasons related to the internal chemistry that both parties feared and, I think, still fear could be explosive in difficult circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

I profoundly agree with the hon. Gentleman. Are there not two very offensive things about this proposal? It means that hon. Members of this House are equal apart from when there are votes for a Dissolution; if a Member is voting in a minority, their vote is worth more. Even more strange and offensive is that if a vote were to take place now, the electorate of Oldham East and Saddleworth would be enfranchised, when they are not enfranchised for any other vote in the House. Such a situation is absurd and offensive.

[Mr Cash]

The hon. Gentleman’s point is extremely sensible and full of common sense, which is what this Bill lacks. This is about something else; it is not about the manner in which our democratic system functions. It is about something completely different and I will come to that in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

Excellent; that is an excellent step forward. [Interruption.] I shall take it as one.

Amendment 4 stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and was also signed by Opposition Members. Effectively, it drives a coach and horses through these entire provisions; the hon. Member for Foyle picked that point up very well. It is because we want to provide for fixed-term Parliaments that the Bill specifies that an early general election can be triggered only if there is a majority of at least two thirds. If it were possible to have an early general election by way of a motion that gains a simple majority, we all know that in most circumstances that would mean that we have given the power back to the Prime Minister. If he felt an early general election was in the interests of the governing party and that view was shared by the governing party, the motion would be passed and we would have a general election, and we would therefore not have fixed-term Parliaments.

I am not surprised that my hon. Friend has tabled this amendment as it is clear from his speech that he does not like the concept of fixed-term Parliaments at all, and that instead he is happy with our current arrangements, which he is entitled to be. However, given that the Opposition have said they are broadly in favour of fixed-term Parliaments—albeit for four years, not five—I cannot understand why they have supported the amendment because, as I have said, it drives a coach and horses through the entire proposition.

[Graham Stringer]

This is a great constitutional innovation. In respect of these motions, can the Minister explain why some Members’ votes will have twice the weight of others’?

[Mr Harper]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s proposition about the weighting of votes. We have set out a straightforward position. We decided on two thirds partly because it is the majority required in the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998, and partly because under the requirement for a majority of such a size no Government since the second world war would have been able to trigger an early election on their own. Effectively, the requirement for a majority of two thirds means that there would have to be some cross-party support and a general mood in the House that there should be an early election.

There was talk about the fact that the coalition agreement refers to 55%, and I acknowledge that. The coalition agreement was put together quite quickly however, and we have since reflected on this question. We wanted to be clear that the Government—both parties together—were going to put aside the prospect of being able to trigger an early general election and that, instead, that could happen only if there was a shared view across the House. The reason we alighted on two thirds was that it was the number used in the Scotland Act 1998, which set up the Scottish Parliament.

[Graham Stringer]

I understand the objectives. I am cynical about them and the motives behind them, but the numerical fact is that passing this motion will require the support of 400-odd Members, depending on the size of the Commons at that particular time—perhaps the figure will be 420—whereas stopping it will require only half that number. Therefore, someone’s vote against will carry twice the weight of someone’s vote in favour. Can the Minister be clear, not on the objectives, but on why he wants to give some hon. Members more voting power than others?

[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.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Percy]

The problem with the American Senator term is that a third of the Senate is elected every two years, which means that they, too, are in a perpetual state of elections, so that idea does not carry over completely.

The other experience of more regular elections is that there tends to be a greater propensity on the part of the electorate to re-elect their incumbents. As I am now an incumbent, that is not necessarily something that I would take issue with. I suspect that all hon. Members would be happy to see incumbents re-elected—[Interruption.] Well, yes, perhaps their own incumbency re-elected. I was particularly intrigued by the comments of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that elections offer the opportunity for politicians to recharge their batteries. That is certainly not an experience I have ever had in an election campaign.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Are not comparisons with the Congressional elections inappropriate, because Congressmen, by and large, manage to insulate themselves from the electorate because they do not have independent boundary commissions but negotiate their constituency boundaries so that 85% of the seats are safe? Therefore, there is no real comparison; when they go to face the electorate most of those Congressmen know they are going back.

[Andrew Percy]

I was involved in that in New Jersey in 2000. Such matters were determined on a state-by-state basis and depended very much on who was in control in that state. It is not quite the case that Congressmen themselves are busy dividing up their own seats, but there are examples where that happens.

I conclude where I started. For me, a four-year term feels more natural. As I said, I have no academic support for this argument. To go to the electorate every four years, which fits in properly with the elections in Scotland and Wales, feels the right thing to do. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments and I look forward to the comments of Opposition Members who, having enjoyed a five-year term, now seek to criticise the Government for seeking to continue them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs McGuire]

Thank you for calling me, Miss Begg. It is a great pleasure to see you in your place today.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) on her dynamic speech. She has always been a participant in constitutional debates. We have often not seen eye to eye, and, frankly, I am not sure that we are going to change that this evening. However, she spoke with her usual vigour, vim and—in her way—logic. For those who do not know, she and I have always had an issue with some Members of this House who could never pronounce her name properly—that is, as we pronounce it in Scotland. I know that I am not allowed to mention names, but I am sure that she knows what I am talking about. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] In Scotland, we would pronounce the hon. Lady’s name “Lang”. I will leave hon. Members to work out the difference, because, without usurping the Chair, Miss Begg, we would normally—[Interruption.] No, sorry, we would say “Layng”, not “Lang”. After 13 years down here, I have almost gone native.

I would like first to comment on one or two other previous speeches in this debate. There have been some powerful contributions to this debate. On the principle of the four-year term, although I did not agree with the analysis on three years put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), he and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) made telling statements about re-energising our democracy at regular intervals. Frankly, it is arrogant of us in this House to assume that we should not go out there and re-energise our democracy at reasonable times. I am not convinced that five years is the right period to re-energise our democracy. Indeed, the dynamic of the British political infrastructure is built around four-year terms. The hon. Member for Epping Forest assumed that somehow Parliament was in a different position from the other elements of our democratic infrastructure, but I do not think that we are, in that they are underpinned by the same principle that if someone is elected by the people, then every so often, after a reasonable interlude, they should have to regain that mandate.

As an aside, the hon. Member for Epping Forest is a fantastic successor to Sir Patrick Cormack—I hope that she will take that as a compliment—in that she says the word “Parliament” with such gusto and conviction. Her articulation—I think that is the word—of the word “Parliament” brought back fond memories of Sir Patrick.

There is a dynamic in the British parliamentary system. There is also a logic to the four-year term, which has been built up over many years, yet the one thing that has been missing from the Government’s case in proposing five years is logic. There is absolutely no logic to their case, although the hon. Lady’s honesty perhaps got us closer than anybody else on the Government Benches was prepared to admit. This is not about logic or principle; this is about sheer political expediency. The current Government tell us that their activities in managing the economy will deal with the deficit in four years, so why are they afraid to go back to the electorate in four years? Why do they need to extend this Parliament for an extra year? Some elements of the coalition Government are in a lifeboat, waiting for the general election of 2015—a political equivalent of the Carpathia—to come by and lift them out of the seas in which they find themselves. That is the only reason for proposing a five-year term.

It is preposterous to introduce a five-year element into a well established cycle of elections every four years. It is almost like the Olympics: if we can divide the year by two, then it should be an election year. Every other democracy that we have highlighted today has gone down the road of four years—in the case of the American Senate, the division is by two. We have a well established political infrastructure in this country.

[Graham Stringer]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case for shorter periods between general elections, but when it comes to a coalition, is there not an even stronger democratic argument for shorter periods? By necessity, the policies of a coalition will have been opaque to the electorate at the last general election. Therefore, a coalition Government should go back to the people more often.

[Mrs McGuire]

I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend. We now have a different kind of Government. Had the numbers been slightly different, we might have been in a similar position—that is, in a coalition. However, I cannot imagine that one of our first Bills would have been to extend the life of that Parliament and put a statutory limit—not a flexible limit—on the length of our term, although some of my colleagues have asked why we did not think of the idea first, when we had a majority of 164 in 1997. Hindsight is a great thing.

As for the length of Parliaments, I want to offer my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) an apology, because he was right when he said that there were three Parliaments that ran in excess of five years. There were three others—I have just added up the years; I did not have the benefit of the chart—that effectively ran for five years. However, I hope that he will accept that, taken together, it has been unusual to go beyond four years.

There has been a strong element of honesty—certainly from this side of the Committee—about what happens in the fifth year of a Government. We have to be realistic about the dynamism and energy of a Government in their fifth year. I remember coming into the House in 1997 and hearing then Opposition Members—some of whom are now members of the Government—say that the fifth year of any Parliament is often the one in which the Government are tired and running out of steam. You might remember hearing similar comments, Miss Begg. I do not think that creating fixed Parliaments of five years will change that dynamic of politics. Four years is the time it takes a Government to put a programme in place and to deal with the major issues that it came to power to deal with.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

rose—

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I am not so sure actually. No, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer).

[Graham Stringer]

I cannot imagine why my hon. Friend is not so sure about that. I would be grateful if he told us where in the Labour manifesto—or anywhere else in Labour party policy—there is a commitment against thresholds. More importantly, is not the serious argument for the Labour party, the Conservative party or any other party in this Chamber the question of what we would do if there was only a 15% turnout? What would the Government do and what would the House of Commons do? Surely we could not accept that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Laing]

By tabling amendments 197 and 198 I am again trying to help the Government. The Minister made it clear when we tried to debate this matter in Committee on 18 October that he wanted a debate and a vote on the vital issue of thresholds. He, we and the House were denied that opportunity in Committee so I hope that I am being helpful in giving him the opportunity to debate it now. Alas, however, because very long speeches were made by Opposition Members earlier, we do not have long to debate this matter.

The amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and I submitted in Committee was for a turnout threshold not of 60%, as I have been derided in the press for suggesting, but of 50%. [Interruption.] Not by the shadow Minister, no—by The Daily Telegraph. There is a surprise! I would never have suggested 60%. However, I have listened to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and I have listened, surprising as it might seem, to the Deputy Prime Minister.

[Graham Stringer]

Where is he?

[Mrs Laing]

He is never here for these debates—never at all. The Minister has entirely taken the responsibility for all this and the Deputy Prime Minister has been here only for the first half hour of Second Reading—that is all—and I do not suppose we will see him at any other point in the debate. I have listened to him however, and he has said, as the hon. Member for Rhondda has said this evening, that it would not be fair to count potential electors who do not vote as no votes. The hon. Member for Rhondda has also said that those boycotting the poll would be counted as no votes, and I entirely accept that.

Prisoners’ Right to Vote

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend listened to what I said in my statement. The blanket ban on sentenced prisoners voting has been ruled to be unlawful. The Government are considering how to implement the judgment to deal with that and, when the Government have made those decisions, the proposals will be brought before the House. Colleagues would do well to listen to how she put her question and to my answer.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The Minister’s answers are inadequate and not reassuring. My constituents who live in the Cheetham ward want to know whether the rapists, murderers and paedophiles—and burglars, for that matter—in Strangeways prison will have the vote or not. Surely he can answer such a simple question.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman was not listening carefully to what I said. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) pointed out, I said that the blanket ban on sentenced prisoners voting has been ruled to be unlawful and we are currently considering how to implement the judgment. We have made it clear that we are not particularly happy about it and we will bring forward our proposals and announce them in this House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will then be able to ask that specific question again and we will be able to answer it.

European Council

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am extremely glad that my right hon. Friend has forgiven the French, as I think he is joining me for lunch with President Sarkozy tomorrow—it might have been a little bit frosty. This is important, because Britain and France share a real interest. We have similarly sized and structured armed forces, we both have a nuclear deterrent and we both want to enhance our sovereign capability while being more efficient at the same time. This treaty will set out that in many areas—such as the A400M, the future strategic tanker aircraft, the issue of carriers and more besides—we can work together and enhance our capabilities while saving money at the same time.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Local democracy in this country is facing 28% cuts over the next four years. That would be a good starting point, I think, as a target for the EU budget. What level does the Prime Minister think that the EU budget should be set at, ideally?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, we had to do the best we could with the 2011 budget. We now have the issues of 2012 and 2013 before we go into the 2014-2020 perspective. Many countries will be arguing for increases—the recipient countries will fight very hard for them and the European Commission, which always wants to see greater competences and more powers, will fight for them. Those of us who are doing the paying will have to unite and fight very hard. The better we can do in 2012 and 2013, the lower the baseline we will work off for the 2014-2020 perspective. That is where we will be pushing extremely hard.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

That is what is done in London at the moment, and in mayoral elections in towns and cities the length and breadth of the country. That system is less satisfactory than the first-past-the-post system. However, it is a lot more satisfactory than the full alternative vote system, which is what is proposed in the Bill at present, because under that system the person who gets the third or fourth highest number of first preferences—or, in some scenarios, even the fifth highest—might end up being elected, because he has got the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth preferences of other candidates. That leads to a very undesirable system, in which not even the person who came first or second past the post is elected, but instead somebody who came much further down the running order, all on the basis of the lowest common denominator, which is the wrong way to choose representatives to this House.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is being absolutely straightforward in saying that he does not really agree with his own amendment, but does he agree that it still does not get over the fundamental flaw in all AV systems, which is that they effectively give people two votes, and particularly people who support minority parties such as the British National party?

[Mr Chope]

Exactly. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and my amendment attempts to mitigate the terms of the Bill, under which some people might have three, four, five or six votes. For example, somebody might put the BNP first and the UK Independence party second, and then vote for some other nationalist party or whatever. All those candidates would never get anywhere near the top of the poll, thereby making it possible for that person to cast a large number of votes. Thus, some people will get a large number of votes, whereas others will not; indeed, they will get only the one vote. One way of explaining the virtues of the first-past-the-post system is to say that it is one person, one vote, which is something that everybody understands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

No, not at all. If the hon. Gentleman read the clauses and schedules carefully, he would see that they make it absolutely clear what information must be provided to the voter—whether voting by post or in person. The Bill provides not just for an advisory referendum but an enacting one, so it will happen if there is a yes vote. The provisions make it clear that voters can continue to express their preference for as long as they wish—or, indeed, they can stop expressing it if they wish to. They can simply say, “My first preference is exhibit A” and subsequently make no further preferences. In the Labour leadership contest, which used the alternative vote—the votes of all Labour MPs were published—quite a few Labour Members voted just for their first preference and chose not to exercise their second, third or fourth preference at all. Some chose to go right down the list—whether it was so that they could say that they had voted for all five candidates, who knows?

There is only one vote, but this brings us to a key question raised by the Minister yesterday: under the system intended to be used, will the winning candidate always have received 50% plus one of the votes?

[Graham Stringer]

On this technical point, does it not depend on how many second preferences are made or, under the full alternative vote system, on how many other additional preferences are made? It is not necessary to get past 50%.

[Chris Bryant]

I gave way rather too soon, as that was precisely the point I was about to make. If people decide not to cast a second or third preference, it is perfectly possible that the winner will not have achieved 50% plus one of the total number of votes originally cast. The winner will have acquired 50% plus one of the votes of those still expressing a preference at that stage, whereas under the hon. Member for Christchurch’s proposal more often the individual elected would not have got even close to 50% plus one of the total number of votes cast. That is why I disagree with the system he proposes.

I fully understand the point made about the term “alternative”. I am one of those irritating people who regularly objects when the word “less” is used when “fewer” is meant. I am annoyed when Marks and Spencer uses it—a pretty depressing state of affairs. I have noticed, however, that although I keep on saying this and correcting people, it wins me no friends—it just irritates people; it has not changed anybody’s practice. It is absolutely true that in Latin—most of us do not speak it much of the day, although the Mayor of London might—alternative means one or the other out of two. Sometimes in places such as Wales there are just two candidates—Labour and Plaid Cymru—but for the most part the number of candidates is considerably higher. There have not been many unopposed elections for many years, either.

If we end up with an alternative vote system, whereby people can express their preferences on a full list, the number of candidates standing will probably increase. There will probably be candidates standing for parties that do not expect to win, but they may be able to persuade their voters by saying, “Well, it is all right to give me your first preference, but when you want to plump for the person you would most like to win, as opposed to the person most likely to win, you can do so”. I understand that this is not the view of all Opposition Members or indeed of the majority of Government Members, but to my mind that would have a positive effect on British politics, enabling more people to engage in the political system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman’s pronunciation of the word “renders”, but other than that, I am not sure I agree with his point. It is true that in elections in the previous century, the Conservative and Labour parties secured something like 95% or 96% of the vote and that in the last election, we secured considerably less than that. That is one reason why we ended up with a hung Parliament. However, I do not see how that bears on my point, which is that in a majoritarian system, once a party gets more than 40% of the vote—many think that this is the great benefit of that system—it tends to find it rather easy to get not just a majority, but a fairly hefty one.

[Graham Stringer]

We can try to work out how many votes it takes to elect a Scottish National party MP or a Labour MP, but the distribution of seats, turnout and the number of candidates standing are bigger factors than boundaries. My hon. Friend and I would have no objection to a quick boundary review if it were seen to be fair, and if there were a right of appeal against Boundary Commission decisions.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes precisely the point that I have laboriously tried to make, and far more succinctly. He is right that a wide range of factors pertain to the different number of votes it takes to elect Labour and Conservative MPs. The Liberal Democrats are not in contention in a large number of seats in the country but none the less gain 15% or 20% of the vote nationally. They accumulate a lot of votes around the country, but do not necessarily secure seats in the House of Commons. That is one function of the majoritarian system. I do not think that the number of votes necessary for election indicates fairness or unfairness in relation to drawing the boundaries. Short of gerrymandering the boundaries so that the pockets of Lib Dem voters around the country ended up in the same constituencies, we would be unable to overcome that element of unfairness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is right. There are many reasons why electoral registration is so low in certain communities, and in some cases people do not want to register because they do not want to pay council tax—a residue from the original attempt to introduce the poll tax—and others might not want it to be known that they are living in a particular house. In some urban areas, with a highly mobile population, many people are not registered because the process of registering is so difficult. We make it virtually impossible for someone to register at any one time, and that is one of the problems that we need to overcome.

[Graham Stringer]

Several interventions ago my hon. Friend was destroying the complacency of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). He made the case that county boundaries will not necessarily be taken into account in working out constituency seats. Does that not show something that has not really come out in this debate and the public discussion, which is that it is most unlikely, if these proposals go ahead, that any hon. Member will ever again represent the same constituency from one election to another?

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

I will not any more.

The Boundary Commission should be given discretion over the matter, because the Bill as currently drafted would unquestionably result in young, vulnerable and minority ethnic communities being under-represented and second home owners and students being over-represented. We all want equality, but we want it interpreted reasonably.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) made some general, profound comments on the threat behind the Bill to the effect that it will destroy the accountability link between hon. Members and their electorate by ensuring that Members never stand again for the same constituency. If he presses his amendment to a Division, I will happily join him in the Lobby. The electorate has an absolute right to vote to support a Member of Parliament who has done a good job, just as it has the absolute right to throw a rascal out.

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Does he think I should seek to divide the Committee on amendment 342, which would mean a report every 10 years, or amendment 341, which would delay the changes until after the election?

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

I would be happy to vote for amendments 341 and 342. Although the mechanisms would be different, the proposals would have an essentially similar affect on accountability.

[Mr Dodds]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there would be support from the Democratic Unionist party and, I am sure, from other parties, if the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) were to press those amendments to a Division? As he said, there is a lack of consensus or cross-party support for those fundamental changes to parliamentary democracy.

[Graham Stringer]

The right hon. Gentleman makes his point well and I am sure the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) heard him.

I shall speak to amendment 38, which is in my name. With permission, Mr Bayley, I should also like to press it to a Division. Other than what I said on amendments 341 and 342, arguments about the number of people on the electoral register lie behind this debate. One argument that was touched on earlier is bogus, and it should be discounted: namely, that the number of electors that it takes to elect a Member from one political party is different from the number it takes to elect a Member for another party. That is irrelevant to this debate. Turnout, the number of candidates and the distribution of electors also affect the number of people it takes to elect a Member for a political party. If people want a kind of representation that means that it takes exactly the same number of people to elect each MP, the answer is PR. I am against that and in favour of first past the post. However, that is nothing to do with the clause.

The second point at the heart of clause 8 is that constituencies should be based on an equal number of registered electors. That is a reasonable starting point, but there are two exceptions—one is relevant to this clause and the other will be debated later. If people are to represent constituencies, geographical features, boundaries and real communities should be significant considerations, as well as absolute numbers. However, how can the Committee say that absolute numbers is the overwhelmingly relevant consideration and accept that change to the system when 3.5 million people are not on the electoral register?

In amendment 38, I am seeking, in a different way from the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), to address voter registration. He is trying to get the Boundary Commission to assess the difference between those who are registered and those who are not. The point of my amendment is to get the Electoral Commission, which is the more appropriate body, to try to satisfy this House and the other place that enough changes and processes have taken place to ensure that as many people as practically possible are registered. Once that has been done, but not before, the figures can be taken into account when considering boundaries.

[Chris Ruane]

My hon. Friend says that 3.5 million people are missing from the register, but the Government announced the other week that they will introduce individual registration and remove some of the measures that could help us to increase registration. When individual registration was introduced in Northern Ireland, there was a 10% drop in registration. If it is introduced on the mainland, that could mean 4.5 million people fewer on the register, so that 8 million people—including the most vulnerable in society—could be missing from the register. Does my hon. Friend agree that that constitutes a very little English coup?

[Graham Stringer]

I would not use the word “coup”, but I would use the word “gerrymandering”. In fact, a double gerrymander lies at the heart of this Bill. I would like the Electoral Commission to look at the issue of registration and report to both Houses, because there are sins of commission and sins of omission involved in why the electoral register is not complete. It has already been said that some electoral registration officers are more effective and efficient than others, and that is true. I represent areas of Manchester and Salford, and the electoral registration and returning officers there are doing a good job. They have done three canvasses and use what data they may legally access to ensure that electoral registration is as complete as possible. But that is not the case in several constituencies.

[Geraint Davies]

My hon. Friend may be interested to note that the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) is now in his place. In his constituency, the register contains 77,628 people, so it is on target, but the population of those over 18 and eligible to vote is 101,000. In other words, 26,000 people will not be counted, and that is wrong. However, Members on the other side of the House, including the hon. Gentleman, will sleepwalk into this ridiculously unfair system.

[Graham Stringer]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the numbers—

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

rose—

[Graham Stringer]

Unfortunately, I think that my hon. Friend may have encouraged the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) to attempt to intervene. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound).

[Stephen Pound]

I think that the House is at one with my hon. Friend on that particular point.

Like me, my hon. Friend represents an urban constituency. I have three surgeries a week and more than 50% of those who attend are not on the electoral register because they are homeless, asylum seekers or simply incapable of being allowed to register. Does my hon. Friend agree that were we to proceed—as I sincerely hope we will not—with this crude numerically simplistic stitch-up we would be ignoring the reality of life in urban constituencies?

[Graham Stringer]

I agree with my hon. Friend and I have similar experiences in Blackley and Broughton.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am puzzled that the hon. Gentleman agrees with the suggestion that a Member of Parliament who knows that 50% of those attending his surgeries are not registered does nothing about it. Why does he not point out to the people who attend his surgeries but fail to be on the register that they are breaking the law? If the issue is as simple as that, something can be done about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

As far as I can see, the hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber for most of the debate. I ask him to listen carefully to this and the next part of my speech. There are reasons why some people are not on the electoral register, but I can assure him that I check whether people live in the constituency and/or are on the electoral register, and if they are not, I try to persuade them to get on to it.

I was coming to the reasons some people are off the electoral register. It is not just a result of how well the registration officer does his job. Among poorer people, the number of people on the electoral register in Manchester declined by about 15% when the poll tax was brought in, because it was the single easiest way of avoiding tax. It has been 20 years since the poll tax was introduced, but the position has never recovered. I could take hon. Members to an estate in my constituency where nearly 60% of people on the electoral register are women. That is not because the estate is not roughly 50:50, but because the men living there do not register so as to get 25% off their council tax. It will take time to address that situation of people avoiding both tax and being on the electoral register. It is not an easy problem, but it should be dealt with.

[Mrs Laing]

If somebody lives in a house and is partaking of the services provided by the local authority, and it is known that they live in that house, and they do not register in order not to pay tax, they are not avoiding tax—they are evading tax. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is up to someone else to register them to vote?

[Graham Stringer]

I agree. The accurate word is “evading” not “avoiding”. I stand corrected. If people are evading tax, and therefore breaking the law, one cannot expect them to change. It is up to those bodies that enforce the law to enforce it. I am happy to clarify that position. Getting the electoral register to represent everyone who is entitled to vote is not a simple process. However, I am sure that hon. Members believe, as I do, that people should be registered and should comply with the law on being registered.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way with his customary generosity, but he fails to recognise that there has to be a definitive basis for registering those qualified to vote in an election and for distinguishing between them and others who live in the area and are served by a Member of Parliament. He might inadvertently be leading the House in that direction. In my constituency, there are 70,000 electors, but nearly 78,000 residents—the rest are mainly EU migrants. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I will serve those people, but there is a distinction between them and those who are duly, properly and legally entitled to vote for me at an election. He is not making that distinction clear to the Committee.

[Graham Stringer]

I have not come to that point yet, but there is an overlap. Some recent immigrants are Commonwealth citizens and entitled to vote in general elections. It is a complicated matter. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but there is some overlap between people who are entitled to vote and people who are part of the recent immigrant community.

Another large area where there is under-representation and, probably, unlawful activity associated with it relates to houses in multiple occupation and private landlords. For different reasons—sometimes voting abuse, sometimes to conceal the number of people living in houses of multiple occupation—landlords prevent their tenants from voting or hinder their attempts to do so.

The hon. Gentleman previously mentioned recent immigrants. Registration is low among those in black and ethnic minority groups for a number of reasons. Sometimes it is because they do not understand the system or are frightened of it, and sometimes, as was mentioned previously in the case of poorer sections of the community, it is because the levels of functional illiteracy are higher than one would want. That means that many of the forms end up in the bin, because they cannot be understood. There are different estimates, but generally in this House—and not just on the issue of electoral registration—we ignore the fact that probably about 22.5% of the adult population in this country are functionally illiterate and find it difficult to deal with forms.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend should call that freedom. It is surprising that this has turned out to be a matter of such extreme importance to the coalition. The question is not whether the yes or no campaign will do better on this or that date—some people profess to know, but I confess that I do not—but why the Government think it is in the national interest or, dare I say it, in their interest to have the referendum on that particular date, and why it is so important to this Government. The only explanation that we have been given so far relates to money, but, considering the scale of the national deficit, I regard £30 million as more of an excuse than a reason. It is rather like the schoolboy whose excuse that he was late for school because he missed the bus does not exactly explain why he missed the bus.

There might be a perceived advantage for the yes campaign in having an early date before the Government incur too much disapproval from voters in relation to the difficult decisions that have to be made about the deficit. The yes campaign might perceive an advantage from a higher turnout, although the NO2AV campaign disputes that. The yes campaign might perceive an advantage in confusion and ignorance, because there is bound to be more confusion and ignorance about the substance of the issue, which I will address later in my remarks, if the polls are combined.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman stated that, if there was a free vote, his amendment would almost certainly be agreed to. Does he agree that, if there was a free vote, there would not be a referendum?

[Mr Jenkin]

That is outside the purview of my amendment.

There might be a perceived advantage to the yes campaign, which the Deputy Prime Minister is pursuing, or to the coalition. There is a risk of a serious collapse in Liberal Democrat support at next year’s local Scottish and Welsh elections, but it would be of advantage to the Liberal Democrats to have the enticement of the referendum on the reform of the electoral system to encourage their activists to press their voters out to vote. I might be wrong—I will stand corrected if I am—but we have not had an explanation. Either way, it is wrong in principle that the Executive should seek to use elections to influence the outcome of a referendum on an important constitutional question, or that they should use the referendum to influence the outcome of elections.

Amendment 4, which is in my name and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, is similar to amendment 155—the Scottish National party proposal. It provides for an order whereby the Government can choose any date that does not coincide with a poll that is regularly held for parliamentary, Assembly or local government elections. In addition, it proposes—this is important—that the referendum is held

“at least six months after the commencement of the referendum period”.

As I mentioned, the Electoral Commission made it clear that it will press for a deferment of the referendum if the rules of the referendum are not clear on a six-month time frame from the proposed date. In fact, the referendum period should count, because it restricts what people can spend and what Ministers can say or announce to promote a particular viewpoint, which might distort the result. The six-month period provides the framework of discipline that provides the fairness of the referendum. Unless we have a six-month referendum period, which is not possible if we do not change the date, we are tempting providence that there will be an unfair referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

Due to the nature of the elections, the electorate in Wales will face three ballot papers at the same time: a yes/no, a d’Hondt and a first past the post. There will be two for the election for the Assembly, including one for the constituency. That could lead to the same congestion at the ballot boxes as people experienced in May this year. If many electors needed to have the ballots explained to them because they had not fully understood the significance of all three papers, that would eat further into the time available for voting. There are very persuasive arguments in favour of not having the election and the referendum on the same day, and I urge the Committee to support amendment 155.

[Graham Stringer]

This has been a long debate on clause 1 and one thing that I have learned, and which could apply also to other parties in the Chamber, is that we should all go to Grantham and Stamford and introduce 90% of the electorate to the hon. Member who represents them at the moment. If they knew the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), there would perhaps be a different result in that constituency. He did, however, point out that some of the debate that goes on here does not have a resonance outside; people are not talking about d’Hondt, the alternative vote or PR.

My position is that there should not be a referendum. On 9 February, when there was a vote in the House on the issue, I was not persuaded when the Whip said, “Vote for a referendum on AV because the Lords will overturn it.” That struck me as an inadequate justification for a major constitutional change, and I have not altered my position. I have listened to all the contributions today, and I watched with exquisite pleasure the misery on the faces of his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) destroyed the case for a referendum on 5 May—the same day as different elections in different parts of the United Kingdom. I think that that argument was won fully. I also accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) said, which was that one reason why we are discussing the matter when people outside do not want to do so is quite simply that a deal was done between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. The Conservatives do not like it but it will keep them in power, and it will give a political advantage to the Lib Dems, who will therefore vote for cuts.

The situation is slightly worse than that, though. There is a double gerrymander in the Bill. The changes in boundaries—perpetual changes without any right to challenge them—deal only with a tiny part of the problem of more votes being needed to elect a Member from one party than from another. The Bill also cuts 11%—a Rawlings and Thrasher estimate—of the seats that the Labour party has, 11% of those that the Lib Dems have, and 4% of those of the Conservatives. In an alliance, there has to be a quid pro quo, so what is it? It is believed, with rather less statistical analysis than in the boundary review, that AV will benefit the Lib Dems. It may well do so; I suspect that there is some common sense to that.

The justification for the referendum on AV, then, has nothing to do with what the Deputy Prime Minister tells us—that it is about putting trust back into politics after last year’s horrific expenses scandal. I have yet to hear any explanation as to how AV as opposed to first past the post will make people feel better about somebody who wants to buy a Stockholm duck house at the public expense. There is no relationship whatever between the two issues.

I have come to a slightly different conclusion from that of Conservative Members to whose speeches I enjoyed listening. Fundamental constitutional change is proposed which will give advantage to the two political parties in a coalition Government. It is more common to change the rules in between elections for the party political advantage of those parties in government. This proposal has been a trait more of nearly democratic countries in eastern Europe in the past, and now more commonly occurs in Africa. If Parliament is to go through with what I consider to be an unnecessary referendum, it should be with an eye not to the next general election, where clear vested interests are at stake, but to the one after that. That is why I tabled amendment 225.

Some good general points against having referendums on the same day as other elections have been made, but the focus of a UK-wide election and a decision to change the voting system for the future takes out the rather cynical self-interest of the two parties in government. When not just 85% but 100% of the electorate are involved, such a thing is worth doing. There is thus a sound argument for proceeding on that basis, although there is not much of a sound argument for having the referendum itself.

Let me provide the three reasons why I believe it would be worth proceeding on such a basis. First, there would be a higher turnout—coherently and consistently across the whole country. Secondly, there would be no self-interest, so we would avoid the cynicism of the two parties in coalition changing the rules in between elections to their own advantage. Thirdly, although the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford thinks that everyone can understand things instantly, I do not. This is a complicated issue and most of the electorate take these things seriously. Much of the current propaganda says things that might be true but are not true. People say, “If you have AV, you get the support of 50% of the electorate.” Well, in some cases that is so; in others it is not. It is still possible to get elected on AV on less than 50%.

Some people believe that AV is more proportional. In some cases, such as the general elections of 1983 and 1997, AV would have produced a less proportional result, with more extreme victories for the Conservatives and Labour respectively. What AV probably does produce—experience of this coalition before the next general election will provide a very good argument against it—are more coalitions. For those reasons, I will support amendments that move the referendum away from 5 May, because that is the worst of the proposals before us. My preference, however, is for having a referendum that will affect not the next general election, but the one after that.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who does not appear to be present at the moment, said that he might be the only speaker for the Government. Fortunately my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) chipped in with some additional support. I can reassure him and, indeed, the Chief Whip that I too intend to speak on behalf of the Government.

All the amendments seek to delay the date on which the referendum takes place, either proposing a specific alternative or suggesting a mechanism enabling the date to be determined later. Some, including amendments 4 and 126, are intended to prevent the combination of the referendum with other polls.

I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed about the combination of the polls next May, but they ignore the fact that it is not unusual to combine elections. Many of us, either this year or in 2005, were elected at a general election, determining who would govern the country, on a day on which people were voting in other elections. I therefore do not think it reasonable to suggest that people are not capable of making decisions about various levels of government and voting on referendums on the same day.