Royal Charter on Press Conduct

Debate between Jack Straw and Nick Clegg

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Lord Justice Leveson looked at this matter extensively and said that, in addition to taking action when the criminal law had been broken, further reassurance was needed to ensure that innocent people had recourse to justice when they were being intimidated or bullied in an unjustified way.

Our royal charter meets all three tests: it delivers Leveson, it commands cross-party support and it strikes the right balance between the freedom of the press and the rights of individuals. One of the biggest hurdles that we have all had to overcome has been the polarisation of this debate, with the idea that someone is either for a full statute or against it, and that they are either on the side of the victims or on the side of the press, when in reality most people are on the side of both. We have not succumbed to those false choices, however.

We have forged a middle way with a royal charter protected by legislation—a system of independent self-regulation, a voluntary system just as Lord Justice Leveson outlined—but with two specific statutory provisions. First, there will be a legal provision to ensure that if a newspaper is signed up to the regulatory regime, judges will be able to take that into account when awarding costs and damages in the courts. Newspapers will be rewarded for playing by the rules, and I very much hope that the newspaper groups will now see the logic of that incentive and get behind the reforms.

Secondly, there will be an entrenchment clause to prevent future Governments from chopping and changing the royal charter on a whim. I have been pushing consistently for that legal safeguard since the royal charter model was proposed. Without it, the royal charter would leave the door open to political meddling by future Governments, and that is a risk that we must not take.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

In 2008, the House agreed, on an all-party basis, in sections 77 and 78 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, to strengthen the penalties in section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 for breach of data protection. Alongside that, a separate section guaranteed press freedom and a public interest defence. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that this is now the time, more than four years after they were passed, to bring those sections into force?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a strong case, and that course of action was recommended by Lord Justice Leveson as well. It is not covered by this cross-party agreement, but it is one of the issues that we will need to sweep up.

Leveson Inquiry

Debate between Jack Straw and Nick Clegg

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The difference is that I believe that the case for legislation has been made, but of course I acknowledge that we now need to show how it could be delivered in practice in a proportionate and workable way. The Prime Minister—I hesitate to recap what he said while he is sitting next to me—has thoughtfully expressed his serious misgivings about taking the step of legislation, but has not entirely excluded that possibility in the absence of other viable alternatives. I think that, in a nutshell, is the difference between our two approaches.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Echoing an important point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that the Prime Minister was incorrect when he talked about crossing the Rubicon in writing elements of press regulation into the law of the land, because the press themselves explicitly asked that there be direct reference to the press complaints code in what became section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998? The press has already sought a statutory underpinning of what it does. All that Leveson is proposing is to give greater strength to the process that they began in 1998.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

What I think we can all agree on—Lord Justice Leveson places great emphasis on this in his report—is that none of this would have arisen if the press had abided by its own code. What surprised all witnesses to the Leveson inquiry—it certainly surprised me, because I was not familiar with the details of the code—was that on reading the code, one thought, “This is excellent—brilliant!” We just need to ensure that it is enforced.

That is where the debate now comes: it is about the means. Everybody agrees that the end must be the application of the principles set out by Lord Justice Leveson. Everybody agrees that the code itself was well drafted and that, if it had been enforced in full, the problems would not have arisen in the first place. The debate, which is clearly already raging this afternoon, is about how we can make absolutely sure that that is done in a way that is independently monitored and that endures. My view is that Lord Justice Leveson has made the case for why that can be done only through legislation, although I stress that how that legislation is crafted is a separate matter, to which the House will need to address itself.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between Jack Straw and Nick Clegg

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I would like to correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman on one point: the Steel Bill would not remove hereditary peers. It would do three things, to be precise. It would extend the, in effect, voluntary retirement scheme that is in place in the other place, which I think has led to the spectacular result of two of its Members choosing to do that. Having seen the coverage of the views of some Members of the other place who are from my party, I can think of one or two whom I hope would take early retirement, but there would not be a mass cull in the way that the right hon. and learned Gentleman implies.

Another provision relates to crooks, but let us remember that that means future, not existing, crooks, who would—hey presto!—not be allowed to sit in the other Chamber. Also, any peer who did not attend once, not even for a few minutes to sign on for their £300 tax-free daily allowance, would be disallowed. I am afraid that any scrutiny of that Bill shows that it would barely trim at the margins the size of the House of Lords, so by its own reckoning it would not do what it purports it would do, which is dramatically to reduce the size of the House of Lords. While I have a great deal of respect for the considerable time and effort that Lord Steel has put into this, my view remains that there is no surrogate for democracy.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Does the Deputy Prime Minister not recognise that his relying on timetabling problems will be seen as a tawdry excuse for a lamentable failure of political will? To my certain knowledge, because I handled such Bills, plenty of controversial constitutional Bills, not least in the first Labour Administration, were not subject to timetabling at all. Such Bills can be got through the House, as this Bill could have been, either by informal agreement or, if necessary, by subsequent guillotining. If he had any courage, that is what he should have done with this measure.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Not only did I have the courage, but I had the courtesy to speak to the leader of the right hon. Gentleman’s party and ask a simple question: if there were objections from the official Opposition to a timetable motion, or even the concept of a timetable motion, how many days would they want? We were prepared to offer more days.

As the right hon. Member for Blackburn knows, under the Labour Government, time and again Bills of constitutional importance were timetabled, and for good reasons. Members in all parts of the House rightly said that at a time of severe economic distress they wanted us to get on with the House of Lords Bill, but for the Bill not to consume all available parliamentary time. What answer did I get, both publicly and privately? That the Labour party wanted individual closure motions.

I am not as much of an old hand in parliamentary procedure as is the right hon. Gentleman, but he knows just as well as I do that that would have led us into a morass and the thing would have been dragged out for months. That once again showed the skin-deep sincerity of the Labour party’s commitment to reform, and it is a great betrayal of his great work in the previous Administration that his party is becoming a regressive roadblock to political reform.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jack Straw and Nick Clegg

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister said earlier that there was no criminal sanction on individuals if they failed to register to vote. The only reason that is so is that the obligation rests on the householder, on whom there is a criminal sanction. Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that as we move towards individual registration, Ministers must reconsider the proposal to allow opting out without any criminal sanction whatsoever?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I made it clear to the House on a previous occasion that we accept the arguments against providing an opt-out, and we will reflect that in the final legislation. On the quite tangled issue of what is, and what is not, an offence, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right that at the moment the offence applies not to registration, but to the provision of information on behalf of a household—in other words, to the obligation to provide information about other people in the household. It is not an offence at the moment not to register. He makes a valid point that is a valid subject for debate, and it was raised by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: under individual electoral registration, the obligation clearly falls more squarely on the individual, rather than on the so-called head of the household. We think that we need to proceed very carefully when it comes to creating new offences in this area, but we are, of course, prepared to listen, and will continue to do so.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Jack Straw and Nick Clegg

Monday 13th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

If the hon. Gentleman can be patient, I will turn to that issue as it is a legitimate one. We had a debate last week about the coincidence of the date of the referendum being the same as that of the elections for the devolved Assemblies, but, as I shall acknowledge later, if he can hold on, I recognise that concerns about the coincidence of two parliamentary elections are qualitatively different and need to be examined further.

Each subsequent parliamentary general election after 7 May 2015 will be expected to occur on the first Thursday in May every five years, dovetailing with new arrangements that will see parliamentary Sessions run from spring to spring from 2012, as we have just heard from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

On parliamentary Sessions, the right hon. Gentleman heard his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say that there would be opportunities during debates on this Bill to debate his announced decision this morning in respect of abolishing one Queen’s Speech and having a two-year Session, until May 2012. Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain how those debates on the proposals made by the Leader of the House will arise during the Bill, because there is absolutely nothing in it that relates to them? To facilitate such provision, will the Deputy Prime Minister ensure, if necessary, that the Government move new clauses providing for the dates of Prorogation and the Queen’s Speech so that we can have those debates?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a legislative matter so such provisions would not be necessary. As I am sure he will acknowledge, these matters are linked. If we adopt this legislation on fixed-term Parliaments, which I understand he supports—unless he has changed his mind—it will have a knock-on effect: we need to align the Sessions of this Parliament to the new fixed-term provisions. Instead of hyperventilating about the abolition of a Queen’s Speech, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that all we are doing is introducing a one-off, transitional arrangement so that those two facts are aligned.

[Mr Straw]

Of course I understand why it is being done, but there is a lot of objection, and not just from the Opposition, to having a Session lasting two years. That has not happened for the last 150 years and it has implications for the power of the House. As the Official Report will show, the Leader of the House told the House just a few minutes ago that there would be opportunities to debate his proposal under this Bill. Could we know how that will arise?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I should like to make some headway on the next issue—

[Mr Straw]

The right hon. Gentleman mentions the Second Reading speech by Herbert Asquith in February 1911. I am very grateful to the House of Commons Library for drawing this to our attention. I have the full speech. The right hon. Gentleman cannot use that quotation to justify something that was never the sense that Asquith was putting across. What Asquith was suggesting was that Parliaments within the five-year bracket would normally last from beginning to end for four years. That was the Liberal party policy as late as 2007. Why is it not now?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I will not compete with Herbert Asquith as well as with the right hon. Gentleman. The wording, as I said, makes it clear that he was pointing out something that we all know: that politics becomes consumed by electioneering in the run-up to a general election, and that therefore, if we have a five-year fixed term, as we are advocating in the Bill, in reality the Government of the day have at least four years to govern for the benefit of the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I shall finish what I am saying about this detailed and involved point.

During that case, the House of Lords reiterated that courts cannot interfere in those proceedings, so far from leading us to believe that courts may intervene under the provisions of the Bill—

[Mr Straw]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that, as “Erskine May” makes very clear, when a Minister seeks to quote in detail from a document, it must be laid on the Table of the House?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jack Straw and Nick Clegg

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

May I join the Deputy Prime Minister in paying tribute to all those who have lost their lives serving our country in Afghanistan since the House last met? We know that for each one of those individuals, there is a family who are immensely proud of their service but who are consumed with grief for their loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with those bereaved families and the comrades and friends of all those who have died.

I think that all of us had hoped that part of the opening of Prime Minister’s questions would be an opportunity for us to express congratulations to Mrs Cameron and the Prime Minister on the birth of their new baby—and, of course, on behalf of the Opposition, we certainly do so. Sadly, however, that is tinged with the dreadful news about the Prime Minister’s father. Let me say on behalf of the Opposition that I am absolutely certain that the Prime Minister has made exactly the right decision—to be where he knows he has to be, with his father and his family at this difficult time.

The Prime Minister in May brought Mr Andy Coulson into 10 Downing street. May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he is entirely satisfied that, while Mr Coulson was editor of the News of the World, at no time was Mr Coulson aware of any use of unlawful hacking of telephones?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his words about the Prime Minister and the great news about the birth of a new baby daughter. I will, of course, pass that on.

As for the issue of phone hacking, the right hon. Gentleman knows, as we all know, that this is a very, very serious offence—a very serious offence indeed. It is an outrageous invasion of privacy, and it is right that two individuals were convicted and imprisoned. As for Mr Coulson, he has made it very clear that he took responsibility for something at the News of the World of which he had no knowledge, and he refutes all the allegations that have been made to the contrary. That statement speaks for itself. It is now for the police and the police alone to decide whether new evidence has come to light that needs to be investigated.

[Mr Straw]

That was not an answer to the question I put. The question was: is the right hon. Gentleman entirely satisfied that, while Mr Coulson was editor of the News of the World, at no time was Mr Coulson aware of any use of unlawful phone hacking? Yes or no?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr Coulson has made it quite clear that he had no knowledge and he refutes all the allegations. While, in a slightly rushed manner, I was preparing for today, suspecting that this issue might come up, I read in one of the briefing notes I received that when Andy Coulson resigned from the News of the World the first person to call to commiserate was the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). He told him not to worry, that he had done the honourable thing and that he knew he would go on to do a worthwhile job. [Interruption.]

[Mr Straw]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

In May of this year, the Deputy Prime Minister’s right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary said that Mr Coulson was

“either complicit in criminal activity or the most incompetent editor in Fleet Street”.

Which is it?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend and I are in complete agreement that if new evidence has come to light—and that is what I want and that is what I expect—the police will now actively look to see whether that evidence is worthy of further investigation. That is what the police are there for; that is what they should be doing.

Of course, it was under the previous Government—the Labour Government—that no further action was taken. It was the former Home Secretary, who has been making all sorts of pious remarks in the press, who decided not to involve Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. The Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to take any further action. If the police now think that new evidence has come to light, let them decide.

[Mr Straw]

The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister’s hon. Friend the Conservative hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), said:

“The evidence, we find, makes it inconceivable that no-one else at the News of the World, bar Mr Goodman, was aware of the activity”

of phone-hacking. What does the Deputy Prime Minister know that the Select Committee did not know?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The police now need to decide whether, in the light of the new allegations that have been made, there is new evidence which requires further investigation. That is what the police are there for, and I want them to get on with that. That is what I expect they should do. But honestly, I am simply not going to take any lessons from a party whose members spent all their time in office back-biting against each other through leaks and counter-leaks to the press—the party of the dodgy dossier, of cash for peerages, of Damian McBride. Let us have a little bit of consistency on this, shall we?

[Mr Straw]

So, when the police have uncovered 2,978 mobile telephone numbers of potential victims and The New York Times has named the Deputy Prime Minister’s own hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) as a potential victim, does the Deputy Prime Minister expect us to believe that the only person who knew nothing about phone hacking at the News of the World was the editor—the very man whom the Prime Minister has brought into the heart of this Government?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

What I expect and hope the right hon. Gentleman will believe is that it is now for the police to investigate whether these new charges and allegations have anything to them. That is what the police are there for. Does the right hon. Gentleman want us all to start second-guessing what is in the newspaper and what statements have been made? Let the police—[Interruption.] Look, we have a war in Afghanistan, we have a flood in Pakistan, and the right hon. Gentleman is inviting the Government to second-guess the work of the police. I should have thought that, after all the years during which he was involved in our criminal justice system, he would know better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jack Straw and Nick Clegg

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As my hon. Friend may know, our priority in the autumn is the freedom Bill, and that will be the principal legislative vehicle to repeal and pare back many of the incursions that have occurred into our privacy, civil liberties and great tradition of freedom, which were so roundly abused by the previous Government.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

On the assumption that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are not holidaying together in Montana, will the Deputy Prime Minister say if and when he will be in charge of the country when the Prime Minister is away on holiday?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As already announced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister will take his vacation in the second half of August. He will remain Prime Minister and in overall charge of the Government, of course, but I will of course be available to hold the fort.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jack Straw and Nick Clegg

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I have long been associated with this case, and I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the work that he has done on behalf of Gary McKinnon. No one doubts the gravity of the offences that Gary McKinnon is alleged to have committed. That is beyond question; the simple question is whether he should, in the circumstances, be tried here or extradited to the United States. The Prime Minister and the President of the United States indicated yesterday that they have had a discussion about Gary McKinnon and that, notwithstanding the gravity of the alleged crimes, they hope to find a way forward.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the British servicemen who have been killed in Afghanistan in recent days: Marine Jonathan Crookes, from 40 Commando Royal Marines, and Senior Aircraftman Kinikki Griffiths, from the RAF Regiment, who both died on Friday; and Sergeant David Monkhouse, from the Royal Dragoon Guards, and Staff Sergeant Brett Linley, from 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment, the Royal Logistic Corps, who both died on Saturday. These were very brave men who lost their lives in the service of their country—our country. We salute their courage, and we will always honour their memory and sacrifice, which they have made for us. I also join very much with the right hon. Gentleman in sending our deep condolences to the families, comrades and friends of these brave service personnel.

We welcome the Kabul conference, which the Foreign Secretary has attended, and hope that it does indeed lead to positive improvements in the lives of the people of Afghanistan. The Prime Minister has said that he wants to see United Kingdom combat troops withdrawn by 2014. Could I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether that commitment is unconditional, or will it depend on the circumstances on the ground at the time?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

First, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. I look forward to answering his questions. This is the first time a Liberal leader has been in this position since the 1920s. Given the right hon. Gentleman’s great longevity in politics, that was probably around the time he first joined a Labour shadow Cabinet.

As to the right hon. Gentleman’s question about our engagement in Afghanistan, the Prime Minister has been clear, and we have been clear as a coalition Government, that we do not wish to see British troops in a combat role in Afghanistan by 2015—not 2014, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) suggested. That is consistent, of course, with the timetable for the Afghan forces assuming responsibility for security by 2014, as agreed in the Kabul conference yesterday. No timetable can be chiselled in stone, but we are absolutely determined, given how long we have been in Afghanistan and given that we are six months into an 18-month military strategy and embarking on a new political strategy, to be out of a combat role by 2015.

[Mr Straw]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome of my appearance, probably my one and only appearance, here in this capacity—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Well, there we are. I am also grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, from which I take it that he was saying—in my view, wisely—that this commitment is indeed a conditional one.

The right hon. Gentleman told this House on 22 June that the Government had denied a loan to Sheffield Forgemasters because the owners

“did not want to dilute their own shareholding in the company.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 148.]

But we now know that, in private, the right hon. Gentleman admitted to the chief executive of the company:

“You… made clear to me your own willingness to dilute your equity share”.

Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the shadow Business Secretary asked you about this, Mr Speaker, and you ruled that

“if a Minister makes a factual error in a statement to the House, it is preferable… that he or she should correct that error in the House.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 186.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman now correct that error?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

First, lest there be any confusion on the vital issue of Afghanistan, which I hope will continue to enjoy cross-party support, let me be absolutely clear that we will see our troops withdrawn from a combat role in Afghanistan by 2015. We are determined to see that happen.

On Sheffield Forgemasters, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the problem was simply one of affordability. Lord Mandelson was writing out cheques to companies like Forgemasters, which he knew would bounce, all the while writing in his memoirs:

“We were deep in a pit of debt and still digging.”

That was what was wrong. It was wrong to pretend that there could be Government assistance for a great company like Sheffield Forgemasters when, as the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, there was “no money left”. [Interruption.]

[Mr Straw]

I find it surprising that the Deputy Prime Minister, who has preached the importance of open, transparent and honest politics, cannot bring himself to correct the record of something that was plainly wrong. The explanation that he is now offering is not the one that he offered previously. That explanation was about the dilution of the company’s shareholding—the same explanation that the Prime Minister offered the House. The Prime Minister told the House on 7 July:

“The question is whether it is an appropriate use of taxpayers’ money to give it to a business that could raise that money by diluting its shareholding.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 369.]

Now that it is clear that the basis on which the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister made the decision to refuse the loan was simply wrong, will he reconsider that decision?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

That was not a question—it was a sort of dissertation. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman talks about openness and transparency. It would have been more transparent if Lord Mandelson and his Government had admitted that there was no money. [Interruption.] Hon. Members should not take it from me; the position was summed up rather well in Sheffield Forgemasters—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

Let us consider affordability—not the reason that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister gave originally, but affordability. The Deputy Prime Minister says that he is concerned about affordability, but we are talking about a loan, not a grant, to help Sheffield Forgemasters build Britain’s future in low-carbon manufacturing. He is not prepared to make that loan, but why is he prepared to acquiesce in spending £550 million a year on so-called tax breaks for marriage—a policy that he described as “patronising drivel”?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is living in complete denial. When we came to government, we discovered that the structural deficit was £12 billion worse than he had led us to believe. His Government had announced £50 billion of cuts without having the decency to tell the British people what they would do about that. We now discover from Lord Mandelson’s infinitely helpful memoirs that the Chancellor had planned to increase VAT, lower tax for people on low pay and cut corporation tax. Does that sound familiar? Yes, it does. We had to do it; they did not have the courage to do it.

[Mr Straw]

I note that the right hon. Gentleman did not say a word about his acquiescence in spending half a billion pounds a year on marriage tax breaks, which he has criticised. No wonder that his noble and new-found Friend Lord Ashcroft says today—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

The Deputy Prime Minister said to the Yorkshire Post:

“Forgemasters can find the money for expansion elsewhere”.

Now that we know that it cannot find the money—as it said yesterday—has not the whole edifice of the Deputy Prime Minister’s argument been demolished? Why on earth will he not reconsider this ludicrous decision?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Thank heavens this is the last occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman will be at the Dispatch Box in this capacity. It seems to me that he needs to go away and practise a bit more.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about impact. Let me just ask him this. Why did his Government do nothing to sort out the banks which were not prepared to offer a decent loan to Forgemasters at reasonable rates? We imposed the levy; his Government did not. Why did pensioners have to wait until this coalition Government came to power for the restoration of the earnings link, which he failed to restore for 13 years? Why did his party scrap the 10p tax rate, whereas we have taken 800,000 people on low pay out of the tax system altogether? That is more progress in 10 weeks than he managed in 13 years.

[Mr Straw]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

With apologies to the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), Mr Speaker.

Just over a month before the election, the Deputy Prime Minister warned about the dangers of policies of the kind that he is now following. He said:

“just imagine the reaction of my constituents in South West Sheffield.”

People like that are going to ask, “Who are these people who are telling us that they are suddenly going to take our jobs away? Who are these people?” Well, now we know who these people are. Are they not the Liberal Democrats—the people who are giving power to the Conservatives without any influence over the policies that they used to oppose?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman may bellow as much as he likes. I am happy to account for everything that we are doing in this coalition Government—a coalition Government who have brought together two parties, working in the national interest, to sort out the mess that he left behind. We may have to wait for his memoirs, but perhaps one day he will account for his role in the most disastrous decision of all: the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Political and Constitutional Reform

Debate between Jack Straw and Nick Clegg

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The two exceptions are Orkney and Shetland, and the Western Isles, which are uniquely placed, given their locations. We have listened also to those who have very large constituencies, so the Bill will provide that no constituency will be larger than the size of the largest one now, and we intend that in future boundary reviews will be more frequent, to ensure that constituencies continue to meet the requirements that we will set out in our Bill.

I understand that this announcement will raise questions from those in all parts of this House, as these are profound changes. Let me just say that, yes, there are technical issues that will need to be scrutinised and approached with care as these Bills pass through Parliament, but ensuring that elections are as fair and democratic as possible is a matter of principle above all else. These are big, fundamental reforms that we are proposing, but we are all duty-bound to respond to public demand for political reform. That is how we restore people’s faith in their politics once again. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

I begin by thanking the right hon. Gentleman for early sight of his statement. First, will he acknowledge that his proposal today to abandon the 55% requirement for Dissolution following a vote of no confidence represents the first major U-turn of this Government, and it has come in less than two months? Why did he not think before about the impossibility of a Government hanging on after they had lost a vote of no confidence by a simple majority? That would have saved him a great deal of embarrassment. As to his now subsidiary proposal for a two-thirds majority for any other Dissolution, what is its purpose? It is not completely superfluous? Either he is in favour of fixed-term Parliaments as long as the Government of the day enjoy the confidence of this House or he is not.

On the issue of a referendum on the alternative vote system, the House will be well aware that just such a proposal was in a Labour Government Bill and was agreed by this House but not the other place before the election. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that during the general election campaign he told The Independent that the alternative vote system was a “miserable little compromise”, saying

“I am not going to settle”

for that? Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House what has changed his mind?

Let me turn to the question of the date for this referendum. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he decided on this May date, which coincides with the Scottish parliamentary and Welsh Assembly elections, and local elections in some, but by no means all, parts of England without any prior consultation with the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly Government, the Northern Ireland Executive or—as far as one knows—local government? Will he confirm that none of the four previous referendums held in the United Kingdom—the EU referendum in 1975, and the more recent Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland referendums—has been held on the same day as elections? What is the argument for not following that precedent? Would it not have been altogether more sensible to consult widely on the best possible date and then to add the date to the Bill in due course? What is the argument against that?

The House will be well aware that we not only sought before the election to legislate for British voters to have a choice about whether to have the alternative vote system or to continue with first past the post, but we pledged to do so in our manifesto at the election. So my party is in support of voters having that choice at a referendum. However, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we will not allow that support to be used as some kind of cover for outrageously partisan proposals in the same Bill to gerrymander the boundaries of this House of Commons by arbitrarily changing the rules for setting boundaries and by an equally arbitrary cut in the number of MPs?

There never has been an issue about the need for constituencies to be broadly equal in size. That principle has been embodied in legislation for decades and has all-party support. As it happens, six of the 10 largest constituencies in the United Kingdom are Labour and only three of the 10 smallest are Labour. The right hon. Gentleman has agreed in debates in this House since the election that there is a huge problem, highlighted by the Electoral Commission this March, of 3.5 million citizens who are eligible to vote but are not on the electoral register. If his aim, as he says, is principle and to make the system fairer, why has he said nothing in his statement about how he will ensure that those 3.5 million are included in the Boundary Commission’s calculations about the size of constituencies and how he will get them on to the registers in time for the review?

If the right hon. Gentleman now accepts that there is a case for Orkney and Shetland, with an electorate of 37,000, and the Western Isles, with an electorate of 22,000, to be given special consideration, what on earth are the arguments for natural and historic boundaries elsewhere not to be taken into account by the Boundary Commission and by the legislation? As he claims that he wants to “empower” the people—his word in his statement—is it his intention that local communities should continue to have a right to an independent local boundary commission in their area if those local people wish it? If that is his intention, when he says, “we will ensure the Boundary Commissions have what they need” to complete this huge task by the end of 2013, only two years after this legislation has any chance of getting through, what additional resources and staff will the Boundary Commission be given?

Let me now turn to the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal to cut the number the number of MPs from 650 to 600—the most arbitrary and partisan of all his proposals. Does he recognise that his international comparisons are tendentious in the extreme since virtually every western country has many more proportionately elected representatives below the level of their national Parliaments than we do, whether the other nation is a federal state such as Germany or a unitary state such as France?

As for all the nonsense that the right hon. Gentleman came up with about how under Conservative legislation passed in 1986 the number of MPs has allegedly been rising inexorably, does he recognise that over the past 50 years the total number of Members of this House has increased by just 3% whereas electorates have increased by 25% and that the work load of Members of Parliament and the demand from constituents on them has expanded exponentially? How will having fewer Members of Parliament enable the British people to be given a better service by their Member of Parliament?

Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he gave evidence to his local Oxfordshire boundary inquiry in 2003, castigated the notion that there might be too many MPs? He said then:

“Somebody might take the view that at 659 there are already too many Members of Parliament at Westminster.”

He continued

“I certainly hope that is not the case.”

Was not the Prime Minister right then, and are not he and his deputy completely wrong now?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Before I deal with the questions that the right hon. Gentleman raised, I want to acknowledge, recognise and pay tribute to the fact that he and his colleagues in the previous Government—certainly in the early years—were a party, at one point, of political reform. They introduced significant reforms: getting rid of the hereditaries in the other place; changing the electoral system for election to the European Parliament; and devolving power to Wales and Scotland. Opposition Members have a choice, and I hope that they will take this opportunity to rediscover that spirit of political reform.

I shall respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s specific questions. He suggested that for the Government to listen represents a major U-turn. We listened to the objections raised on both sides of the House to our proposed 55% threshold, and we have acted on them. The inclusion of the two-thirds threshold gives an additional, new power to Parliament. Let us be clear what we are doing with the fixed-term provisions—provisions that his party used to support. We are taking power away from the Prime Minister and giving Parliament more power over the Executive. Surely that is something that he and other Opposition Members would support.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact that the referendum will coincide with elections being held on the same day. Is he seriously suggesting that people are incapable of taking more than one decision in a day, or of filling in an extra box to answer yes or no to a straightforward question? That is misleading and patronising at best. He claims that the ambition to have more equal constituencies is “outrageously partisan” and involves gerrymandering. It was the Chartists, back in the 1840s, who first proposed equal-sized constituencies. The Labour party used to believe that votes should have the same weight, wherever they were and whatever part of the country people found themselves in. How on earth can he and other Labour Members brand something as simple as giving fairness to every voter in the country as “outrageously partisan”? This proposal is based on a simple principle of fairness and he should support it.

The right hon. Gentleman cited the figure of 3.5 million unregistered voters, and I agree that something should be done about that—[Interruption.] Something has needed to be done about it for the past 13 years, and we will bring forward proposals to accelerate individual electoral registration, precisely to help to do that.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether local people would be heard during the boundary review process. Yes, of course they will. He also returned to the issue of the size of the House of Commons. Let us remember that existing legislation—the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986—already suggests that our Chamber is far too large. If we do not change that by capping the number of MPs, that number will just ratchet up and up.

It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party have a choice. Are they in favour of reform, or of the status quo? Over the past few weeks, the signs have not been very promising. Last week, he turned his back on any progressive reform of our criminal justice system. Every day since the election, he and his colleagues have opposed every measure that we have put forward to sort out the black hole in the public finances that they created. Is the Labour party a party of progress or of stagnation? Is it a party that stands for something, or does it just stand against everything? Is the Labour party in favour of change, or just in favour of itself?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jack Straw and Nick Clegg

Tuesday 22nd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

On 7 June, the right hon. Gentleman told the House that he accepted the case for smaller island and heavily rural constituencies in the north of Scotland, which happened to be Liberal Democrat. Does he also accept that in urban areas there is a very heavy case load of constituents, that it is growing, and that in every urban area there are tens of thousands of citizens who are not on the electoral register and who ought to be taken into account in these calculations?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I have a simple question. Why is the right hon. Gentleman so frightened of equal-sized seats? It is extraordinary. Why does he not go back to first principles? Why is it that all he wants to do is indulge in special pleading?

There are issues of principle at stake. It is right, as the 1986 Act sets out, that we should have more equal constituencies. It is right that we should bring the size of the House of Commons down. We have a more oversized lower Chamber than any other bicameral system in the developed world. It is right, of course, that the boundary review should be conducted independently, as it will be. I do not understand for the life of me what is wrong with that.

[Mr Straw]

Let me make it clear that on this side of the House there is no issue about ensuring that constituencies, as far as possible, are of equal size, and there never has been. The issue is about ensuring that that process is conducted in a fair way, and that full account is taken of the 3.5 million citizens who, according to what the Electoral Commission said in March, are not currently registered to vote. It is surely fair to ensure that those individuals are taken into account in the electoral calculations.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am as concerned as the right hon. Gentleman about the fact that there are 3.5 million people—[Interruption.] Well, what did you do about it for 13 years? You created the problem in the first place, and now, within a few weeks, you are complaining about it.

Let me repeat that I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I understand the strength of feeling. Of course the review should be conducted independently, and of course it should be conducted fairly. I think that it is fair to have constituencies in which people’s votes are equal regardless of where they live in the country. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to work co-operatively—[Interruption.] I know that it is extremely unpopular for any Labour Member, as was recently shown in the case of the former Secretary of State for Defence, to reach out a hand to work in co-operation with this coalition Government. Lord Prescott gets his ermine in a twist, and says that it is collaboration. What kind of new politics is that?

Constitution and Home Affairs

Debate between Jack Straw and Nick Clegg

Monday 7th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I have already explained, and the hon. Gentleman must accept, that, clearly, there needs to be a different figure for the motion of no confidence, which stands, and the figure for dissolution—a new right for Parliament.

I have also explained that, when we table the legislation, we will of course ensure that no Government can fall between those two things—a motion of no confidence and a vote of dissolution. We will, as is the case in many other parliamentary systems, set out how we can avoid a limbo in which a Government do not enjoy the confidence of the House yet a vote has not taken place, or cannot take place, to dissolve Government. That is what we will do. Instead of constantly seeking to see plots around every single corner, driven by a touch of party paranoia, I ask the hon. Gentleman to relax and wait until he has seen the legislation. Then we can have the debate.

[Mr Straw]

Frankly, if these proposals are formed already, the Deputy Prime Minister needs, if I may say so, better to spell out how they would operate. Will he please, for the benefit of the House, explain what would happen following a vote of no confidence? Let us take as an example what happened in ’79—the vote of no confidence. Everybody knew that that would trigger a general election. If there had been a 55% threshold, there could not have been a general election; there would have been limbo. What is his proposal for filling that gap?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The Government are three weeks old. The right hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out that these are very important matters. We want to get them right. I have indicated today, quite clearly, that this is not just a matter of the vote of no confidence and a threshold for a vote for dissolution, and that we need to fill in the details of the legislation to prevent what I think he is rightly concerned about, which is a Government not enjoying the confidence of the House, yet a vote of dissolution—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

We believe, as did the previous Government, that we need to introduce individual voter registration. I agree with the right hon. Member for Blackburn that that should be pursued, particularly if it is accelerated, with great care. It is a resource-intensive thing to do. We need to get it right.

The current legislation, which the right hon. Gentleman and others introduced, allows for voluntary individual voter registration to start now, with a view to moving towards a compulsory system by 2015, if I am correct. There is now an issue about whether we want to accelerate that process, but we can all agree that if we do so it must be properly resourced and organised.

I should now like to address the issue that the right hon. Gentleman raised at quite some length: the redrawing of Britain’s unfair electoral boundaries. I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that must be done with care, but he must agree with me that the need for care is not a reason not to act at all. The most recent boundary review in England began in 2000 and took six years to report. By the time the new constituencies were used in the general election last month, the population of one in five constituencies in England was more than 10% above or below that review’s target figure of 69,900. In the most extreme case, we have one constituency that is five times the size of another. That is simply not right. It is the ultimate postcode lottery, whereby the weight of one’s vote depends on where one lives, so I ask the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to engage fully with the process as, over the coming months, Parliament has its say on an overall but modest reduction in the number of House of Commons seats.

[Mr Straw]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to the contrast between the Western Isles, with 22,000 people, and the Isle of Wight, with more than 100,000. I do not argue that the Isle of Wight be represented by only one Member, but does he suggest that the separate considerations that have been made for island communities, including separate seats for the Western Isles, for Orkney and for Shetland, be abandoned in favour of a strict electoral quota, as the Conservatives proposed before the election?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am not saying that there will be a rigid, arithmetical formula which—[Interruption.] No, there will be—[Interruption.] Let me finish. There will be a consistent approach towards the equalisation of constituencies throughout the nation, but of course that approach will need to accommodate some of the specific characteristics and features of the nations and regions of this country. We are now working on how we do that, and of course we will come forward with proposals.

However, I again ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he seriously thinks it acceptable that one fifth of constituencies in England are now 10% above or below the target population figure that was set when those boundaries were last reviewed? Surely he must accept that that issue requires another look, and that it is not wrong to aspire to such a House of Commons, which, in terms of the total number of MPs, is already far, far larger than was originally envisaged.

[Mr Straw]

rose—

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I give way first to the right hon. Member for Blackburn.

[Mr Straw]

First, on the size of the House, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the number of MPs has gone down a little since 2005, and that, although the size of the House has increased by 3% in the past 50 years, the electorate for which we are responsible has increased by 25% and our work load has shot up dramatically. I regard as completely spurious his argument that there would be some net saving by reducing the total number of MPs, unless our constituents are to receive a far less good service than they receive at the moment.

Secondly, of course we will examine proposals for ensuring that the system can be speeded up, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, if future reviews are to be sensible and fair—[Interruption.] If future reviews are to be sensible and fair, they must take account of not only registered electors, but the 3.5 million people who, the Electoral Commission says, are eligible to vote but not on the register.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

That is a problem, and that is exactly why the acceleration of the individual voter registration system must be done in a way that successfully addresses that problem, rather than exacerbates it.

The right hon. Gentleman and all his colleagues basically have a choice about the issue of a referendum on the alternative vote and the linked issue of a boundary review. Either he tries to see the issue—slightly neurotically—through the prism of pure party interest, whereby all he wants to do is to adopt a defensive position to protect his own party’s arithmetical standing in this House, or he and his colleagues should in my view be prepared to engage with the serious issue at hand, which is that constituencies are unequal, the weight of people’s votes is unequal and that that is simply not an acceptable position at a time when we have this great opportunity to renew our democracy from top to toe. That is a choice that he should make.

On everything from this matter to the 55% threshold, I would say two things. First, it is a political choice for Labour Members as to whether they want to leap straight from government, having failed to move on all these things, to outright oppositionism driven by the slightly paranoid sense that everything is targeted at them and no one else, or engage seriously in what I believe is a promising moment in our political history to reform things, and reform things for good.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Clearly the job of being an MP in sparsely populated and very large rural constituencies is a great challenge, which my hon. Friend knows more about than most. That is exactly the kind of thing that we will need to take into consideration as we progress with this measure.

I should like to turn to reform of the other place, which we all agree must now happen. It should be up to the British people to elect their second Chamber—a second Chamber that must be much more representative of them, their communities and their neighbourhoods. To that end, I should like to announce the following measures. First, I have set up a committee, which I will chair, to take forward this reform, composed of Members from all three major political parties, as well as from both Houses. Secondly, the committee will be explicitly charged with producing a draft Bill by no later than the end of this year—the first time that legislation for an elected second Chamber will ever have been published. Thirdly, the draft Bill will then be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses during which there will of course be ample opportunity for all voices to be heard.

Make no mistake: we are not starting this process from scratch. There is already significant shared ground between the parties that will be taken as our starting point. I am not going to hide my impatience for reforms that are more than 100 years overdue. Subject to the legitimate scrutiny that the Bill will deserve, this Government are determined to push through the necessary reforms to the other place. People have been talking about Lords reform for more than a century. The time for talk is over. People must be allowed to elect those who make the laws of the land. Change must begin now.

[Mr Straw]

rose—

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Let me just confirm that the committee will hold its first meeting as early as next week, and that its members will be the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is the Minister with responsibility for political and constitutional reform; the Leader of the House of Lords; the Deputy Leader of the Lords; the shadow Leader of the Lords, the Leader of the House of Commons; the Deputy Leader of the Commons; the shadow Leader of the Commons; and, of course, the shadow Justice Secretary, to whom I give way.

[Mr Straw]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and we will work constructively with him and his colleagues.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.