House of Lords Reform Bill

James Gray Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

In 1970 I had the privilege of sitting on the steps of the throne in the other place to listen to my father’s maiden speech. In 1995, following what I thought was his untimely death, I had the opportunity to go there myself to make my own speech. In the intervening period I often sat on the steps of the throne, largely because doing so was free and, as a trainee in the Savoy company, I was able to spend afternoons on split shifts there. I listened, watched and learned a great deal about the House of Lords. I remember many great noble Lords making many great speeches, but I came to the view that, however wonderful it was, it was no way to run a legislature. When I arrived in this place, in my maiden speech I made it clear, as I had done in speeches in the other place, that I would seek to work for reform of the Lords and would not rest until it was an elected House.

Therefore, I rise to support my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister’s Bill. When I made my maiden speech in this House, what I said on Lords reform was said more in hope than expectation, but let me tell him now that the expectation is high, because this is the right reform, at the right time and in the right context. I believe that for two fundamental reasons. First, in my view the House of Lords is broke. It does not actually work. An hon. Friend referred earlier to the number of Government amendments that the Lords voted against in the last Parliament, but the crucial point is the number that survived scrutiny afterwards in this place. As we all know, when an amendment that is made in the other place arrives here we are told that the Lords have asked us to think again but, as they are not legitimate or elected, let us, the legitimate and elected House, strike it down. That is the critical fix that we need to make.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

If I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument correctly, he is now saying that, because Members of the House of Lords are to be elected, when they turn something down and it comes to this House we will be more likely to give way to their views. If that is the case, surely he accepts that we are in fact giving up part of our powers?

[John Thurso]

Let me come to that point in a moment, because it is a critical part of the argument.

The second fundamental reason I believe that the House of Lords should be reformed is that for the past 50 years the Executive have gradually been pruning the powers of Parliament. For 50 years the ability in this House, and in Parliament as a whole, to hold the Government to account has been diminishing. For me, the Bill is primarily about the primacy of Parliament as a whole. It is not a zero-sum game. Increasing the legitimacy of the Lords will increase the legitimacy of Parliament as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

I have given way twice, so unfortunately I do not have time to do so again.

On the question of what voting system we use, I am aware that the coalition agreement said that we would use proportional representation and that it has some attractions. Some of the things we like about the second Chamber at the moment, such as the fact that some distinguished former Members of this House have been appointed to it, could be continued were we to carry on with that voting system. I would fight for Baroness Thatcher to be top of any list that the Conservative party would field, so from that point of view there are some merits in the PR system. However, it is clear that in many countries where PR has been used it is an extremely unsatisfactory system. Israel elects its “Commons” on the basis of PR, which often ends up giving the balance of power to undesirable elements. I would have a significant concern about that.

I think we all agree that Cross Benchers play an extremely important role, and if I were to move in any direction from what is proposed, it would be to give an increased weight to them. However, I now wish to discuss something that has not been mentioned—the geographical problems of what is being proposed—and relate it to my private Member’s Bill in the last Session on the West Lothian question. In its current form, the Bill would clearly exacerbate problems with the West Lothian question. We have yet to see the report from the West Lothian commission, but I anticipate it in this Session of Parliament. A further look at how the upper House worked would clearly need to be taken because of the West Lothian question, so I throw out a proposal to colleagues: rather than have the much larger geographical constituencies proposed in the Bill, let us do away with the geographical link altogether and have national proportional weighting in the allocations in the upper House. Such an approach would completely sever the geographical link, which I know a lot of colleagues have expressed concerns about, and would solve the West Lothian question.

[Mr Gray]

rose—

[Harriett Baldwin]

I have taken two interventions and have only a couple of minutes left. I want to allow many colleagues to contribute, so unfortunately I will not give way.

I wish to conclude by saying that I hope we can use the 10 days available to move forward constructively with the things the House agrees on. I hope that in this Session our proposals will carry the majority of the House, so that we can look back on this opportunity to reform the House of Lords and say that we did not fall into the temptation to filibuster and talk out the Bill, but were able to leave behind, for future Parliaments, a more reformed second Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

It is with a heavy heart that I speak to the Bill before the House. I am a reformer and I would welcome a well-crafted Lords reform Bill without election that reduced the size of the upper House, removed those who have committed serious criminal offences, improved the scrutiny of legislation, strengthened the appointments process, reduced political patronage, converted the hereditary peers to life peers, and separated the peerage as such from the legislature. Those measures would constitute a great reforming Bill and would, I suspect, pass through this House on a free vote. This Bill, however, is a hopeless mess.

Members of the House can properly differ on the merits of the underlying issues. What they cannot differ on are the flaws in the Bill itself. It is deeply confused and, indeed, dangerous legislation. It will prevent real reform. It will reduce diversity and deep expertise in our political system. It would be a catastrophe for this country if the Bill were ever enacted.

David Lloyd George famously referred to the House of Lords as Mr Balfour’s poodle, but if the Bill goes through we will have Mr Clegg’s lapdog—a Chamber full of elected party politicians.

There has also been an important failure of due process. The Government originally worked hard to establish a consensus on the Bill, but without success. The Joint Committee sat for longer than any in recent memory. Because of its internal disagreements, it was forced to put more issues to the vote than any recent Committee. It even produced an unprecedented minority report, signed by six Privy Counsellors, but the views of the Joint Committee have barely been heeded by the Government. Its key recommendations were that an issue of this constitutional magnitude required a referendum and that the crucial clause governing the relationship between Lords and Commons should be entirely rethought.

Those recommendations have been ignored or brushed aside. The result is that important matters have been introduced without any pre-legislative scrutiny. Those include a revised clause 2 on the relations between the Houses, and a party list voting system. Instead, the Government have treated the votes of a highly divided Committee as a consensus when they were nothing of the kind. The Government refused to allow the Committee to publish the costs of the draft Bill, and refused to schedule a debate on its report, as is normal practice. They have rushed to get the Bill into Parliament before the summer.

[Mr Gray]

As evidence of the lack of consensus that my hon. Friend so well describes, has he ever attended any Second Reading debate in which every speech of any substance at all was against the principle behind the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). I listened carefully to the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech this afternoon—I listened dutifully and did not intervene. He seems to have become the Andy Murray of this House; he has gone from being a set up and at break point two years ago to being in deep trouble in the fourth set this afternoon. I suggest that part of the reason is that his arguments seem to centre on the point that we do not want to spend a huge amount of Government time on the Bill and just need to get on with it and get it through—we basically just need to agree with Nick. However, from what I have heard over the last few hours, very few of the Members who have spoken so far seem to agree with Nick, but there is still time and, of course, there is tomorrow.

Many Members have said that the Government should not be spending time on this issue right now and that no one cares about Lords reform, but I do not entirely agree. Governments multi-task all the time, so the Bill takes its place alongside many others, and that is the choice of Ministers this time. I also do not think that it is fair to say that no one cares about Lords reform. The truth is that those who care about it do so passionately. I suspect that they come predominantly from one political tradition, but that does not make their views any less valid, and I certainly do not dismiss them. I have received a huge number of e-mails from constituents over the past few weeks putting both sides of the argument, and I do not dismiss any of their points.

I agree with what so many Members have said today, but let me also state from the outset that I believe in the reform of Parliament, including the House of Lords. I stand by the manifesto commitment I stood on two years ago to work to build a consensus and deeply regret that we have been unable to do so.

[Mr Gray]

My hon. Friend alleges that no consensus has been achieved, but surely the real feeling in this afternoon’s debate shows that there is a strong consensus that the Bill should be consigned to the dustbin of history?

[Steve Brine]

Although it is tempting to agree with my hon. Friend, there is quite a long way to go on Second Reading, but I certainly feel that there are straws in the wind.

I think that there is plenty we can do to reform the other place. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) touched on a number of things we could do without abolishing the House of Lords or jamming up Parliament for months, if not years, with a clumsy Bill that seems to get worse the more times I read it.

To be blunt, I think that we are approaching the whole business the wrong way round. Reform of Parliament should start with a simple question: what do we want this House and the other place to do? I think that we want a second Chamber that acts as a revising Chamber, largely free from the politics of the first Chamber and, ultimately, always subservient to it. In other words, purely with regard to the roles performed and the way we make the laws of this land, I think that we have it about right in the United Kingdom. We can argue until the cows come home, and no doubt until they go out again, about who should sit in this bicameral Parliament but, when it come to the system of checks and balances on the Government of the day, I think that most of the sensible people I represent would say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Let me turn to who sits in the upper House. What is proposed in the Bill is a host of senators—let us call them that for now—who would sit for an unrepeatable term of 15 years. From what I have heard so far this afternoon, that seems to be at the heart of the concerns right across this House. The record will show that I asked the Deputy Prime Minister in this House on 20 March whether he thought that

“a 15-year senator who is unable to stand for re-election is more or less accountable than a current Member of the other place”.—[Official Report, 20 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 639.]

I have to say that the answer I received was hardly convincing. The current Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, helped greatly when he told the BBC recently:

“They’re not accountable… there will be no power of de-selection. Once they’re there, they’re there for 15 years.”

I accept that it is absolutely the case that under current rules, without the power of recall, Members of this House could leave the election night count, jump in a cab and go to Heathrow, take a flight direct to Barbados, sit on a deckchair on a white sandy beach for five years and that decision would catch up with them only if ultimately they sought re-election to this place at the next general election. I take that seriously. The point is that I am accountable to the people of Winchester only if or when I seek re-election to this place. A guaranteed job on £300 a day, with zero accountability—why on earth are we even considering creating such a gravy train? If it were not so serious, it would be funny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I regret that I will not be in the same Lobby tomorrow night as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), even though I agreed with much that he had to say today. I think that the primacy problem in this place has nothing whatever to do with the House of Lords or even the House of Commons. The real issue that lies at the heart of UK constitutional politics is the corrosive effect of the overweening primacy of the Executive.

Anything, but anything that provides an effective counterweight to the oft unchallenged power of the Executive is, in my view, a good thing. I remain to this day staggered by the sheer gutlessness of this place, including of many Members who will vote against this Bill’s Second Reading and programme motion tomorrow night, because we waved through the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, and it was a terrible bit of legislation.

That legislation cravenly supported a reduction in the size of this House, and it was promoted by the Deputy Prime Minister on the basis of a fatuous saving to the public purse of £10 million a year, which even in his own words has been overwhelmed by the additional amount of money that will be required for the new House of Lords. At the same time, we failed either to nail down any commensurate shrinking of the size or cost of the House of Lords, or to address the constitutional iniquity surrounding the absurdly inflated Scottish Parliament and Northern Irish and Welsh Assemblies.

But I am a democrat, and since my maiden speech in this House I have supported, and will continue to support, a fully elected House of Lords. The case for the preservation of the “ancient traditions”, as many hon. Friends have assured me, of the upper House was conclusively lost in 1999. Once the vast bulk of the hereditaries had been removed, so too should all appointed Members have followed. Instead, today we have a bloated House of Lords, of which the Lords Winstons and Puttnams are assuredly the exception rather than the rule.

Over the past 13 years the ranks of the upper House have been swelled by literally hundreds of party hacks and large-scale political donors, along with dubious-quality legislators given the nod on politically correct grounds. In the charming words of my Liberal Democrat opponent at the last election, ironically herself also the daughter of a life peer, I was too “male, pale and stale”. That may well be the case, but I was also elected, and in a democracy that matters.

While I am happy to support the principle of electing the House of Lords both on Second Reading and in the vote on the programme motion, I believe that in many of its particulars the Bill is shoddy and poorly drafted.

[Mr Gray]

If my hon. Friend is right in saying that the Bill is shoddy and ill drafted, how on earth can he support the programme motion, which should have allowed us the time to put that right?

[Mark Field]

I will come to that at the end of my remarks, if I may.

The Bill misses the opportunity to propose an elegant solution that might have resolved effectively the four main domestic constitutional uncertainties that have plagued our whole political arena for the past three decades. I hope that when it is in Committee and in the other place we might be able to make some progress in that regard. With a federal UK parliament and four elected national parliaments, we could have not only maintained the monarchy, strengthened the Union, and resolved questions over the legitimacy of an unreformed House of Lords, but given independent and equal representation to citizens in England as well as in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

As many Members have said, the British constitution has been one of the success stories of modern politics. It has kept this country together, united under a common Crown and a common Parliament, for over 300 years—not for us the coups, revolutions and counter-revolutions that have plagued many of our European partners over that period. So successful has it been that we Britons had perhaps stopped thinking about some of its great successes. Until 15 years ago, nobody in this House or beyond gave much thought to constitutional issues; we knew instinctively that we had a British constitution that worked well for the whole of these islands. I am afraid that that was destroyed in 1999 when we got rid of the traditional House of Lords, removing much of the genuinely independent hereditary element and created hundreds of new life peers. Shamefully, this process has continued even under the coalition Government, with some 120 new life peers being created. That is unacceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth).

The two Members who have excited me the most in this debate are my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). We need true, bicameral reform. Both parts of this Parliament need to look at themselves and ensure that we have a dynamic, active and reformed Parliament—one Parliament, two Chambers, which in my view should both be elected. I appreciate that the Bill is merely one step on the way and is not the answer to the big parliamentary deficit from which we suffer, but we have an opportunity to consider a new settlement between the public, Parliament and, most importantly, the Executive.

Although many people might have heard a lot of conflict in the debate and a lot of difference between the Government’s position and that of other Members, over the past 10 months the process of public debate, the proceedings of the Joint Committee, on which I served, and other discussions have delivered, in a strange way, a significant amount of consensus. There is consensus about a reduction in numbers in the Lords, the end of patronage and the decoupling of titles. Those are all fundamental points about the anomaly at the heart of our constitution, and I think we can agree on them. The sticking point is whether we have a second Chamber that is elected or selected.

In many people’s minds, the case for selection is that people without political bias would be appointed. Does that mean that membership of any political party would preclude someone from being put forward? What criteria would be used for the selection? As we have discussed before, we must consider whether people would represent vested interests and embed the status quo rather than offer a Parliament that can provide reform and take things forward. Are those people not a group of professionals who have benefited from the status quo and are part of the elite?

[Mr Gray]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the most passionate and powerful opponents of what the Government are doing with regard to, for example, the reductions in the armed forces are the field marshals, generals and others in the House of Lords? They are the passionate opponents of the Government, not their supporters.

[Laura Sandys]

Yes, but they have no vote on this matter, because it is one of financial restructuring. They can discuss it, but to be frank they do so more in the media than in Parliament. Formers members of the military, or of any institution, have every right to discuss Government proposals, but I am not sure they need the House of Lords to do that.

We have an example of how selection can be negative. One of the previous chairmen of the House of Lords Appointments Commission said, “We don’t want hairdressers in the House of Lords.” I am very proud that we have a hairdresser in our House. Any selection process will not choose people who have not been to the right dinner party. Those who do not know the right people, or who have not networked and become well connected, or those who do not come from the south-east, will not be selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Stevenson]

We are talking about our institutions where there is representation and where laws are made.

To any rational person, the current arrangement is absurd. We live in a democracy and we, the British people, should be allowed to elect those who make our laws and govern us. Equally importantly, we should also be allowed the opportunity to put ourselves forward for such a role. As things stand, I have to be able to explain to my constituents that, when it comes to the House of Lords, although they live in a democracy and we can vote for and be councillors, MPs, mayors and so on, they cannot vote for some of the people who pass laws over them, nor do they have the opportunity to hold such offices themselves. That cannot be right.

[Mr Gray]

Perhaps my hon. Friend will answer one simple question: is he, or is he not, a hereditary monarchist?

[John Stevenson]

I do not believe that the monarchy is part of our constitution where effective—[Hon. Members: “What?”] No, it is not involved in our effective day-to-day constitution, in terms of the laws that are passed, so when my hon. Friend talks about the monarchy as such, he is talking about a different concept.

Backbench Business Committee

James Gray Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Natascha Engel]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that plug. Of course, it was he who came to the Backbench Business Committee with the suggestion for a debate on a referendum on the EU.

One of the most shocking events I encountered while chairing the Backbench Business Committee—I do not know whether other hon. Members felt the same—was the first time I ever heard a Conservative Member call a Labour Member his honourable friend.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

What a mistake!

[Natascha Engel]

I know; it was a shock to all of us. When hon. Members come to the Backbench Business Committee, they are, collectively, Back Benchers holding the Government to account. The event I mentioned was a mark of how dramatically things had changed.

On the debate on the EU referendum, although the Committee has not always selected subjects for debate that the Government have been entirely happy with, the Government have made the working of the Committee possible. Certainly, although not always entirely happy with what we have done, the business managers and the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the House have always co-operated.

One of my criticisms of the way that relationship has worked is that the allocation of time to the Committee has been entirely ad hoc and pretty random, which means that we have not been able to schedule ahead. That has caused us a real problem and some difficulties; it is quite unnecessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Natascha Engel]

Again, that is a helpful intervention; I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

I was talking about provisional approach that the Backbench Business Committee decided to take in its work. One of the most important decisions we took early on was to meet in public. That was not in the Standing Orders, but we were very aware that seven members and a Chair meeting in private almost one day per parliamentary week to decide which debates should be held would not be right. It was important for us to meet in public, to receive representations from our fellow Back Benchers and to be guided by what they brought to us, rather than by what we ourselves thought might be interesting debates. One of the Committee’s successes was to open it up to Back Benchers. That means we never have any idea what—if anything—will walk through the door, but it has added to the frisson of chairing and being a member of the Committee.

[Mr Gray]

I add to the general paean of praise for what the hon. Lady has done. One of the predictable things walking through the door every year is the debates that some argue should be held in Government time: the defence debates. We used to have three such debates a year on predictable days, but now they are arranged by the Backbench Business Committee. Is that right, or would she rather they went back to the Government for them to arrange?

[Natascha Engel]

That is an important issue that I hope the Procedure Committee will look at in some detail. Part of the allocation of 35 days for the Backbench Business Committee comprises what were previously set-piece debates. Defence actually had even longer—five days—along with a number of other debates, such as on fisheries or EU Council matters. There are many such debates, but we decided that they should compete on merit with all the others brought to us each week, which has disappointed those who were used to having the five defence days or the Wales day debates, for example. We, as Back Benchers, collectively need to resolve the matter, through the Procedure Committee.

I wish to draw to a close now to allow the following Back-Bench debate to take place, but I want to say a big thank you to the original members of the Committee—there were two Labour members who were replaced after they were promoted, one to the Whips Office—and to the Clerks who have supported our work, without whom we could not have done it. On a personal note, I express my gratitude for being given the opportunity to chair the Committee, which is an innovation; it is very rare that something brand-new comes along in Parliament. To have been involved right at the beginning has been a tremendous privilege.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman and his party ought to be a little careful on this subject. We are not going to take any lessons from them, because they did absolutely nothing about this for 13 years. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week, when we bring forward our proposals early in the new year, we will have done more on this in 18 months than the Labour Government did in 13 years.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

No one would disagree that there should be no place in this building for improper access or influence; that is obviously the case. Does the Minister agree, however, that there is a problem of definition? Perfectly legitimate charities and other organisations are lobbyists, even though they are not paid to lobby and do so on their own behalf. Will he therefore be careful about defining precisely what a lobbyist is, and take care not to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Our constituents lobby us every day of the week about legitimate issues, for example. We must be careful to take these matters forward sensibly, which is why we are going to bring forward our proposals for consultation to ensure that we get this right and that we do not inadvertently stop our constituents and others raising important issues with us.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Letwin]

The hon. Gentleman, who I have discovered has a very honourable record of visiting social enterprises in his constituency, makes a good point. We do believe that there is great merit in including in public sector contracting provisions that reflect social value and social outcomes. We are working on that and we intend to proceed with it.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Government have launched the Contracts Finder website, which enables third sector companies to find Government contracts. How does the Minister intend to assess how successful that has been and will he publish figures to demonstrate whether or not it has worked?

House of Lords Reform

James Gray Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of House of Lords reform.

On 17 May, the Government published a draft Bill and White Paper proposing a reformed House of Lords. Since then, there has been considerable debate on the content of the proposals—I, of course, welcome that debate. These are significant constitutional changes and so demand proper and full scrutiny. As the debate unfolds, however, it important for us to step back for a moment and remind ourselves why we are doing this. First, very few people seriously believe that the status quo—an unelected second Chamber—makes sense in a modern democracy. [Interruption.] Most people agree with that, anyway.

During last week’s debate in the other place, someone said that elections are not

“the only form of democracy”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 2011; Vol. 728, c. 1165.]

The suggestion that democracy can somehow exist without elections reminded me that there is a fundamental principle at stake here—a basic choice. Do we believe that people should choose their representatives in Parliament, or do we not? Should citizens choose the people who make the laws of the land, or should they not? Every hon. Member must now decide which side of the argument they support.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I apologise for intervening so early in the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech, but it is important to pick up his statement that everyone presumes that the status quo is not an option. What evidence does he have? The status quo is precisely the option for which I will vote.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

If I remember correctly, my hon. Friend voted for 100% election to the House of Lords when this subject was last up for discussion, which suggests that he might be more willing to entertain change than his question implies. Even the advocates of minimal change—even those in the other place, as was witnessed in last week’s debate—accept that some change is now unavoidable.

We have all promised change—every major party committed to Lords reform in their manifestos last year—so there is a legitimate expectation that we will now deliver it. Liberals and Liberal Democrats have long pursued Lords reform as part of a wider renewal of our political arrangements; the Labour party has advocated it as a blow to patronage and privilege; and the Conservative party has, especially in recent years, pushed for putting more direct power in the hands of voters.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The two issues are wholly separate. More than that, if my hon. Friend has other ideas about how we can arrive at our shared objective of a wholly or mainly elected House of Lords, that is precisely why we are now creating a Joint Committee. That is precisely why we have published not a final Bill but a draft Bill with a White Paper and why that followed a process of cross-party discussion in a Committee that I chaired, and which in turn built on many recommendations of a cross-party nature over the years and the decades. It was not just an invention of this Government. The Wakeham commission, the Straw committee and others came up with many of the recommendations that we are now suggesting. If he thinks they are too complicated, I look forward to his suggestions about how they can be made simpler.

[Mr Gray]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

If I may make a little progress, because I know many others wish to speak.

Our proposals are a comprehensive blueprint for change—there are 68 clauses and nine schedules. There is a lot to discuss. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) will respond to points raised in the debate in his closing speech.

The next stage, as I have just mentioned, is pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill and White Paper on a cross-party basis by a Joint Committee of both Houses. I am sure that the Committee will take note of today’s debate in its deliberations, and we look forward to hearing its conclusions in due course. The Government’s plan is then to introduce a Bill next year in order to hold the first elections to the reformed House in 2015. There is clearly a lot of detail to be hammered out between now and then, and I hope that both sides of this House and of the other place will work together constructively as we move forward.

The truth is that no one seriously supports the status quo. [Interruption.] The vast majority of people do not support the status quo. I am delighted, by the way, by the enthusiasm for change from Opposition Members, which is excellent progress compared with the previous debate. Everyone has committed to change and we must now be pragmatic on the detail, never losing sight of the basic principle at stake: in a modern democracy, people must choose their representatives. Let us complete the long journey of Lords reform once and for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

What we have before us is a draft Bill, but we have also a very good Joint Committee, and I look forward to it doing the work that is required, within a sensible time scale, to come back with a Bill that we can all accept with cross-party consensus.

[Mr Gray]

May I invite the shadow Minister to rise from the short grass and the detail of exactly what is going to happen and, for a second, before he moves on to the detail of his speech, to address a fundamental question? Which aspect of the work of the House of Lords, as currently constituted, does he dislike or think unsatisfactory? If he can point to some part of the work of the House of Lords that is wrong, will he explain how it would be improved by electing 100% of its Members?

[Sadiq Khan]

The hon. Gentleman heard the speech from the Deputy Prime Minister, who gave a number of examples whereby the other Chamber—[Interruption.] I will give the hon. Gentleman an example. Is it right that we have 828 Members in the other place, all of whom, except for the 92 who by good fortune of their DNA have to go through elections, are not elected? That is not acceptable in a modern democracy.

There are those who have, I accept, legitimate concerns that a directly elected upper Chamber might seek to assert its newly found democratic mandate by facing down the Commons, and it is critical that the Joint Committee addresses that issue. After all, the primacy of this House must remain. It currently rests on two principles, the first of which is legislative. The Parliament Acts removed the powers of the Lords over money Bills and empowered the Commons to override the Lords on non-money Bills. The second principle underpinning the primacy of the Commons is drawn from the elected nature of its Members, so if we move to a directly elected upper Chamber it is not unreasonable for some to ask whether this House faces a threat to its primacy.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

It is one thing to have a target but another to reach it. The £21 billion of public sector fraud that the National Fraud Authority identified arose after his party’s Government had set their ambitious targets. We are getting on and doing things—identifying fraud and error and stopping hard-earned taxpayers’ money going out of the door, to ensure that instead it goes to the vulnerable people and important public services where it is needed.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

One and a half billion pounds sounds not like a modest saving, in the words of the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), but like a worthwhile saving, given that every penny comes out of people’s pockets. How soon will the Minister be able to take forward savings towards achieving the £21 billion total? We need to stamp this out of the public sector: what can we do about it?

[Mr Maude]

I should make it clear that this is only the beginning. The issue is not only benefit or tax fraud but procurement fraud. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is undertaking a pilot on supplier fraud in his Department, and it is already yielding significant returns. If the previous Government had been as concerned with eradicating fraud as we are, the public finances would not perhaps be in the mess they are in.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

We listen very carefully to what people have to say, and of course we respect the fact that the SNP won a mandate in Scotland; we are responding extremely positively. The first point I make to the hon. Gentleman is that the Scotland Bill, currently before the House, is a massive extension of devolution. He shakes his head, but it is an extra £12 billion of spending power. We will be going ahead with that and we will look at all the proposals that First Minister Salmond has made. I take the Respect agenda very seriously, but it is a two-way street: I respect the views and wishes of the Scottish people, but they have to respect that we are still part, and I believe will always remain part, of a United Kingdom.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Q6. Last Friday was the 90th anniversary of the Royal British Legion, next Monday is armed forces day, and on Tuesday 120 soldiers from 16th Air Assault Brigade will march through the Carriage Gates into Parliament to welcome them back from Afghanistan. Can we tell them, or will the Prime Minister repeat his assurance, that the armed forces covenant will now be written into law, for the first time in history?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can give that assurance, and I am delighted that the Government and the Royal British Legion have agreed the approach we will take in the Armed Forces Bill, which is passing through the House. I am very glad that the House of Commons will be welcoming those soldiers from 16th Air Assault Brigade. Like the rest of our armed forces, they are the bravest of the brave and the best of the best. We cannot do too much for those people; that is why the armed forces covenant matters, and that is also why we kept our promise to double the operational allowance to soldiers serving in Afghanistan and other theatres.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yet again, here is another reform important for making sure that our pensions system is affordable and sustainable that Labour has completely given up on. What we are doing with pensions is linking them back to earnings—something that was promised repeatedly but never done—and making sure that our pensions system is sustainable for the long term. That is what we are delivering—something never done by Labour.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Q5. The people of England have almost as much to lose from any move towards Scottish independence and the break-up of the Union as the people of Scotland. Will the Prime Minister therefore give us all a vote in a referendum on the subject?

[The Prime Minister]

I have made my views clear: if the Scottish Parliament wanted to hold a referendum, although I think that that would be a retrograde step, we would have to grant it. I would then join with everyone in this House and beyond who supports our United Kingdom to ensure that we keep it together. That is the process that we should go through, and it would involve a vote for people in Scotland, not for those in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Libya and the Middle East

James Gray Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the Prime Minister for his reply, but may I just say, for future reference, that references to members of the royal family should be very rare, very sparing and very respectful? [Interruption.] Order. We have to be very careful in our handling of these matters, and I hope that we will be.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I thank and congratulate the brave young airmen and women of RAF Lyneham, which is still in my constituency and whose C-130J Hercules played such a crucial role in the evacuation. Does the Prime Minister agree that in future a much greater role could be played by contractors who at present have fairly scant plans for evacuations? If they expanded their own plans, we would lessen the risk to young service lives.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has made a good point. Obviously there needs to be a deeper conversation and greater planning between companies and the Government. Of course, companies have played an important role, but I feel that we need to ensure that we get this right for the future. Trying to bring people out of the desert across 20 or more platforms is extremely complicated, and I am sure that we can learn some lessons about how to do it better in future.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

James Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I have two points to make. First, on my hon. Friend’s last point, we are talking about a national referendum and the important thing is to get people to vote across the whole of the United Kingdom. Secondly, we do not have a tradition in this country of thresholds for referendums either. Ten referendums have been held and only in the devolution referendum in the 1970s was a threshold inserted—the rest of the referendums had no such provision. He is being too pessimistic, because people will engage with this question. However, it would be wrong to thwart a clear decision—a yes vote—on the basis of the sort of mathematical formula that I have just set out. It could have quite perverse results and give an incentive for people to stay at home.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan]

rose—

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I will take your injunction as implicitly indicating that I should give way to fewer of them.

On the effect of AV, it is not, of course, the case under our system of optional preferential voting that it is necessarily 50% of the votes cast that counts; rather it is 50% of the vote remaining in the count. If lots of people choose not to accept a preference, AV does not imply that a Member of Parliament must get more than 50% of the vote. I simply disagree with my hon. Friend. He will know that I am as unenthusiastic about the alternative vote as he is, but I think the right thing to do, which is the Government’s policy, is to have the referendum so that he and I can go out and argue for a no vote, while other colleagues wanting a yes vote will make that case. We can then both seek to get as many people as possible to vote on our behalf. The Government’s view is that if there is a turnout threshold, it will provide an incentive for those who favour a no result to stay at home. I do not think that we should be encouraging that.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

Let me make a little more progress.

There are some technical and practical deficiencies, some of which were partially addressed in Lord Rooker’s Third Reading amendment, which the Government did not oppose pending full consideration in the Chamber. The definition of electorate was dealt with, as was how the turnout would be calculated. A problem with the original amendment was not remedied, as it leads to the creation of an internal contradiction in the Bill. It makes no consequential change to clause 8 to clarify that, in a case where the turnout is less than 40%, the referendum result is no longer binding. As it stands, clause 8 provides that the result is binding, irrespective of the turnout.

In addition, neither amendment makes any reference to what kind of process would follow a non-binding result. In the debate, Lord Rooker and his colleagues indicated that, in the event of a yes vote where the turnout was less than 40%, the question of whether the AV provisions should be implemented should return to Parliament. That point has been repeated by Members of all parties, but it is not made clear in the Bill or in the Lords amendment with which we disagree. There are also some issues with the definition of turnout.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is quite right. I was just coming on to the point that there is also the question of whether the definition of turnout in their Lordship’s amendment is correct. Lords amendment 8 specifies that

“the turnout figure is to be calculated on the basis that 100% is defined as the total number of individuals who are entitled to vote in the referendum, as defined in section 2; and… under Part 1 of this Act”.

That means that the turnout figure would not include those who had voted on the day, but whose votes were deemed, for whatever reason, to be void. Those void votes are not counted. As Lord Wallace noted in the other place, the Government’s view is that if eligible electors go to the polling station and vote, they have “turned out”, so they should be included within the turnout figure, even if their vote is subsequently deemed to be invalid. Although this aspect clarifies how to interpret Lords amendment 1, it does not necessarily do so in the right way.

[Mr Gray]

The Minister rests his argument on technicalities, which no doubt the Government could sort out by tabling amendments themselves. Returning to the main point of the debate, does he agree that Lord Rooker’s amendment would allow this House to decide how low the threshold should be if there were a very low turnout in the referendum? In other words, if, for the sake of argument there were a 5% turnout, would the Government believe that to be sufficient? No, I do not believe they would. If it were 35%, I believe they would. What level of turnout does the Minister believe to be a reasonable level to account for “the will of the people”? What would he view as a sensible turnout in the referendum—25% or lower?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend has made a number of points. Let me say first that I did not rely on the technical arguments; I made the principled case at the outset, before adding that serious technical amendments were involved. Although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) pointed out, the Government’s original position was simple and clear, the Lords amendments are complicated, and introduce a great deal of uncertainty.

In referring to what the House might do if the amendment were passed, my hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that some Members, understandably, wished to use an amendment passed in the other place by a majority of one as, effectively, a threshold amendment. If the threshold were below a certain point, they would wish to block the decision of the people. As I said earlier, we have taken the view that we should give the decision to the public, that we should campaign in favour of whatever is our side of the argument, and that we should all provide an incentive for the maximum possible turnout rather than some of us providing an incentive for those favouring a particular side of the argument to stay at home.