Wales Bill

Debate between Jonathan Edwards and John Penrose

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful to the Minister for the tone of his reply and for his clarification. Having read up on the potential implications of the Brexit situation, whereby the new Prime Minister may decide to call a snap election, I wonder whether it would be possible, under the terms of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, for the new Prime Minister to call a vote of no confidence in him or herself, therefore triggering an election.

[John Penrose]

If the hon. Gentleman is not already in his party’s Whips Office, he probably should be, because that is a proper Whips Office wheeze. Were such a thing legally possible—I defer to others to decide whether it would be—I do not think it would pass the test of democratic credibility. Any Government who sought to precipitate their own downfall through that kind of mechanism—voting against themselves and saying they were not competent—would, as a practical matter, probably be judged quite harshly by voters in the polls. However, I appreciate that we are talking about theoretical circumstances, and we will have to leave that issue to the future to decide.

The point I was trying to make is that there are legitimate arguments on both sides, and both systems—one here, and one in Scotland—already persist quite happily side by side in British constitutional arrangements, and the question is now being raised in relation to the Welsh Assembly. I do not want to say that one system is inherently legitimate or illegitimate, or that one is necessarily better or worse than the other. It has to be a question of what is acceptable to local decision makers—in this case, Assembly Members and their officials in the Welsh Assembly.

We are therefore sympathetic to taking this issue away and thinking about it carefully. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising it, and he makes a thought-provoking case. If he agrees, I would be happy to take his amendments away—I think he indicated they were probing amendments—to see whether we can take this issue forward or at least develop his ideas and thinking a little further.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Super-majority requirement for certain legislation

Short Money and Policy Development Grant

Debate between Jonathan Edwards and John Penrose

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

The measures will in due course come to the House for a vote, and rightly so. They will be subject to proper democratic scrutiny in due course, so the hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity to try to persuade others of his point of view, but I again draw a crucial distinction between the provision of public money, funded by taxpayers, who do not have a choice about whether the money goes to political parties, and voluntary political donations made by whoever it may be—individuals or trade unions. In the end, people should have a choice. That is the crucial distinction between those two sources.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Short money and the policy development grant are vital for parties such as mine in developing ideas and policies, which are the vital ingredients of any functioning democracy. If the UK Government are serious about cutting the cost of politics, why do they not reduce the membership of the over-bloated other House?

[John Penrose]

We are extremely serious about cutting the cost of politics. As you know, Mr Speaker, we have plans to reduce the size of this Chamber from 650 to 600 MPs, as was agreed in the last Parliament. The number of peers is going up, but the cost of the upper House is falling. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome that news and the news that there are ongoing political discussions on a cross-party basis on how other reforms might be effected in the House of Lords.