Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Wayne David

Monday 3rd November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I want to make a few brief comments and ask the Minister some questions about clause 6 and schedule 1, and clauses 7 and 9. These provisions relate, as he said, to the petition officers who will be appointed.

My questions are about the costs incurred in this process. The Bill is non-specific and refers to the condition that

“the total of the officer’s charges does not exceed the amount…specified in, or determined in accordance with, regulations made by the Minister”.

However, one of the interesting things about the Bill is that it is accompanied by a detailed impact assessment, which goes into such meticulous detail on the likely costs incurred during the process that it lists the estimated total costs of one recall petition, which include the cost for the petition officer, at £500, the cost of the petition signing place, at £734, and the cost of the petition notice card, at £20,891. I was wondering why, if that much work has been done, the Government are waiting for secondary legislation. Why not build it directly into the Bill, so we could see exactly the cost that is likely to be incurred? If we are committed to secondary legislation, when are we going to see the provisions for it coming forward? Will it be done quickly? I presume it will be, because if the work has been done, I see no reason at all why it cannot be brought forward immediately. Perhaps it is, in reality, already available and could be presented to us.

My second point relates to clause 7, which refers to a “maximum of 4 places” where the petition can be signed. To his credit, the Minister has said that he has taken into account the opinions of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, but why has he not taken into account the representations made, not just by the Member who tabled the amendment, but by the Electoral Commission? The Electoral Commission has provided a circular, which has gone to all Members. It says that it sees no reason why there should be “a maximum of four” places in which to go and vote, suggesting there should be “a minimum of four” places. It makes the very good point that our constituencies vary enormously in their size and geography, so four places might be appropriate for a compact constituency, but nowhere near enough for more rural constituencies.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I imagine that, for the Western Isles or even parts of rural County Durham, four places would be quite inappropriate because people would have to travel long distances. In common with my hon. Friend, I cannot understand why we are having a maximum of four rather than a minimum of four places.

[Wayne David]

That is precisely the point; my hon. Friend puts it very well. Surely, given the extreme variation in the geographic nature of UK constituencies, it makes good sense to have a degree of flexibility. It would be very unfair, for example, if certain voters in large, geographically dispersed constituencies with a difficult geography felt that they were being excluded from a democratic process that we know has excited a great deal of public interest. I would be grateful if the Minister responded not just to what I am saying, but to what the Electoral Commission has said after taking the trouble to circulate information to all Members.

My third point relates to clause 9. The Electoral Commission has queried the wisdom of the Government’s stating on the face of the Bill the wording of the petition, suggesting that it would be far better to have a process of testing among electors to see what words would be most appropriate, most effective and best understood. I think that is a very fair point. We have seen in previous legislation, such as the recent Bill on the EU referendum, that the form of words used makes a big difference to the impression created for the electorate; and we want them to make a fair and objective choice about the pros and cons of a given situation as conveyed in a question.

I would personally question whether the Government have chosen the best form of words. Let me cite clause 9(4), which states:

“By signing in the box below, you are signing a petition for [name of the MP], the MP for [name of constituency], to lose [his/her] seat in the House of Commons”.

I question whether “to lose” is the best phrase to employ. Would not “to no longer continue” be better? It might make a difference to the way in which many people cast their vote. The only sure method of testing that would be an exercise involving a representative cross-section of people to see how they responded to different forms of words. That is important, because words are not simply objective statements per se. They can have certain implications, and lead to certain inferences. The word “lose” might strike some people as excessively strong, and might dissuade them from casting a positive vote.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend is making a good point. The MP in question might not lose his or her seat following the signing of the petition. If a by-election followed, it would be up to the electorate to decide. If a very small number of people wanted to destabilise an MP, this would be the way to do it.

[Wayne David]

That, too, is a good point, which deserves careful consideration. I think we all know from our experience of various referendums in the past that the words that are used on a ballot paper can be very important indeed. I think that the Government should recognise that what they need to do is consult the people, and come back later with a properly thought through and broadly acceptable measure.

[Mr Jones]

We should bear in mind what has happened in the United States, where so much pressure is put on people who feel that they have done nothing wrong, or have been challenged because of their policy positions, that they resign at that point, and do not stand in the subsequent recall election. The phraseology in the Bill could be used in the same way. The pressure put on individuals could be so great that they would give up before the by-election even if they had done nothing wrong.

[Wayne David]

That concern was expressed during our last sitting, and it is a concern felt by many people in the House and beyond. We need a democratic process in which people can have confidence, and which fulfils a proper function. We do not want the Bill to be used, indeed abused, as a vehicle enabling external interests, perhaps well financed, to put undue pressure on democratically elected representatives.

I am pleased to say that the extremely well-prepared impact assessment refers to the costs that would be incurred for the Welsh translation of recall petition documents. It is estimated that the cost of a petition in one of the Welsh constituencies would be £100. I welcome that information, because—casting my mind back not too far—I remember that there was quite a hoo-hah in the House when the Government forgot that bilingual ballot papers would be needed for the elections of police and crime commissioners. Some of us said to the Government at the time that we thought it very likely that secondary legislation would be necessary. We were told “We have consulted our expert lawyers, and they have said that there is no need for it.” However, the expert lawyers were wrong, as is often the case, and there was a need for legislation at the last moment—literally just before the PCC elections. However, because the Government had made a mistake, they had to have extra forms produced in English in Wales just in case there was not enough time to get the new secondary legislation on to the statute book. The result was that at the end of the day the Government simply wasted £130,000 of taxpayers’ money because they would not take advice from us.

Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Wayne David

Monday 27th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

In a minute. Most Members of Parliament do their best for their constituencies. The situation now is very different from the days when Members never lived in their constituencies or went anywhere near them. In the light of developments such as electronic media, MPs are more accountable to their constituents than ever. I want to knock on the head the idea that we come to Parliament, sit on these green Benches and never give a thought to the opinions of our constituents, and do not talk to them daily.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend said that in his view, there is no such thing as a Westminster establishment. Does he agree with me that there is also no such thing as a Westminster class? Those of us who live in the real world know what class politics is really all about.

[Mr Jones]

I agree. I would not consider myself to be in the same class as the hon. Member for Richmond Park, for example. The fact is—[Interruption.] I am not antagonising my constituents, as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) says from a sedentary position. Most Members of Parliament get elected to try to do the best for their constituencies, and it is insulting to say they do not. I may disagree politically with other Members of this House—of all shades—but the majority are in politics not only to do what they can to help their constituents, but to make the world a better place as they see it. The same was true of my time in local government; I think I met only one or two rogues—who were perhaps in politics for different reasons—when I was a councillor. It is a bit patronising for people to dismiss that point.

We must get back to recognising that standing for elected office is a noble thing that people should strive for, not just in this place but in councils and elsewhere. I respect anyone who has the guts to stand for election. Many commentators criticise what MPs do, but if they were asked if they would stand for election and be subject to such scrutiny not only at election time but throughout the life of a Parliament, not many would say yes. We must recognise the value of standing for elected office.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Wayne David

Friday 22nd November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend also agree that there is some concern about the amendment, because the question would read:

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?”?

We tabled an amendment last week to include Gibraltar. Does he think that there should be some reference to Gibraltar on the Gibraltar ballot paper?

[Wayne David]

rose—

First World War Commemoration

Debate between Lord Beamish and Wayne David

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I think that we all agree that the first world war was a truly terrible conflict. There can be no doubting the bravery of the millions who fought for their country, many of whom lost their lives—nearly 1 million soldiers from the British Army and over 700,000 from the British isles. But I believe that we should also acknowledge the conscientious objectors to the war. They, too, were people of courage who stood up for what they believed in and experienced enormous public opprobrium as a result. They also experienced huge personal hardship and discrimination after the war ended.

Caerphilly has a two-fold distinction in that respect. First, two of its MPs, Morgan Jones and Ness Edwards, were conscientious objectors. Ness was the Member of Parliament from 1939 until 1968 and served as Postmaster General in the 1951 Labour Government. He was preceded by Morgan Jones, who served as an Education Minister in the Labour Governments of 1924 and 1929. Secondly, Morgan Jones was the first conscientious objector to be elected to the House of Commons—he was elected in a by-election in August 1921—and it is about him that I would like to say a few words this afternoon.

Morgan Jones was born in May 1895 in Gelligaer in the Rhymney valley. He came from a modest background, his father being a coal miner. He left the valley to receive an education at Reading university but returned to become a local councillor. He was elected as a socialist and a member of the Independent Labour party. He was a man of principle, courage and conviction. He did what he thought was right and held firmly to his principles throughout his life.

From the moment Britain entered the great war in August 1914, Morgan Jones was a vocal opponent of the war. Like many in the ILP, he believed that the war was unjustified and unnecessary, a nationalist conflict that set worker against worker. He therefore opposed the war as a socialist and as an internationalist. But he also adopted a Christian pacifist position and declared his opposition to all forms of warfare, believing that the destruction of human life should not be a means of solving international disputes. His unequivocal views led him quickly to join the No Conscription Fellowship, and he was appointed to its national committee in 1914.

In the early part of the war, until 1916, the British Army consisted entirely of volunteers, and south Wales was a particularly important recruiting ground. However, it soon became clear that relying on volunteers was not enough, so the Government introduced the Military Service Act 1916 and conscription. Under the Act, local tribunals were established to determine cases of exemption for men who could best contribute to the war by continuing in their civil roles. One of the effects of the Act was to create two kinds of conscientious objector. The absolutists were those who adopted a maximalist position of being opposed to the war but also refusing to accept any kind of alternative work. The other type of conscientious objector was the alternativist. These individuals were wholly opposed to the war but prepared nevertheless to accept some form of alternative employment, mostly in transport or mining. Morgan Jones was one of those conscientious objectors, and he eventually came to accept membership of this voluntary scheme.

Early in 1916, Morgan Jones received his call-up papers. At about the same time, Gelligaer urban district council, of which he was a member, was informed—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech that shows how we are going to look at all aspects of the first world war in the coming years. Is he aware that some 7,000 conscientious objectors went to the front and some were killed as a result of doing stretcher-bearing and ambulance work?

[Wayne David]

Yes indeed. Those who became stretcher-bearers were probably at the greatest risk of all those in the armed forces, and the casualties among them were particularly high.

Morgan Jones was a member of Gelligaer urban district council. His own council, at a full meeting in February 1916, voted by 10 votes to eight to empower the chairman and the clerk to convene a special meeting wherever necessary to take appropriate action to consider the cases of those who were making conscientious objections. Such a meeting was convened in his case, but it was inquorate, and it seems very likely that the Labour members absented themselves to make it so. Nevertheless, the local tribunal was eventually convened and Morgan Jones appeared before it to put his case.

Interestingly enough—I have done some research on this matter—the minutes of Gelligaer urban district council have mysteriously disappeared from the Glamorgan record office, as have the minutes of the local tribunal, and nobody seems to know why. However, we know from the local press that when the tribunal was convened, Morgan Jones put a robust case, declaring himself a socialist and someone who was

“resolutely opposed to all warfare”.

He argued that the war was the result of wrongheaded diplomacy. Predictably, however, the local tribunal concluded that he would not be excluded from military service. He therefore appealed to the tribunal in Cardiff, but his appeal fell. At the same time, action was being taken against the No Conscription Fellowship, and he was found guilty in that regard as well.

In essence, after all was said and done, Morgan Jones went to trial and went to prison, and, as a consequence, suffered a great deal of physical and mental hardship. However, at the end of the war, when he was eventually released, an opportunity arose for him to stand for election to this Parliament in 1921. He was successfully elected and, as a result, made his true imprint on history by being the first conscientious objector to be elected to this House.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Wayne David

Wednesday 27th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

May I make an alternative suggestion? Perhaps it could be a dead duck sitting in an oak tree.

[Wayne David]

Perhaps there should be a competition to determine the most appropriate symbol.

On the issue of joint Co-op and Labour party candidates, I understand that the Government explained on Second Reading and before that the clause is intended to address a gap in the legislation. Can the Minister provide reassurance not only that it will address an anomaly in the case of parliamentary elections, but that there is no difficulty in the case of local elections, and that is covered by other legislation?

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Wayne David

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this provision is the last remainder of what was essentially a gerrymandering Bill and that not removing it will affect the boundaries? Can he see any reason why Liberal Democrats in particular should vote for it, given that it would be one of those rare occasions when turkeys vote for Christmas?

[Mr David]

My hon. Friend’s concern for the Liberal Democrats is touching, although I cannot say that I share it. To answer his first question frankly, yes, at the start of the legislative process, strong words were used, not least by me, because we were worried by the overtly and crudely partisan nature of the Bill of that time. But—and it is an important “but”—the Government modified their position. I give them credit for doing so. As my hon. Friend implies, if they have made concessions in a host of areas already, why not go the whole hog and let us have a proper consensual approach?

I listened intently to what the Minister said in the debate on our amendments last Monday. He did not produce any convincing arguments why the timetable that we established in legislation when we were in power could not be followed, and why we need to move hastily towards the Bill. If the Government do not take heed of what we are saying from the Opposition Front Bench, let them at least take note of what many people outside the House have said—the Electoral Commission, academics and the cross-party Select Committee. Many people drawn from a range of different organisations have made the same point: this is probably the most important change to our electoral system since the advent of universal suffrage. It is far too important to be the victim of crude partisanship. We want a consensual approach that will unite all democrats.

Finally, the Bill is important in terms of people’s ability to decide whether to cast their votes or not, but it is important in other respects as well. This underlines the civic responsibility point—people need to be on the electoral register for reasons other than to vote. One of the most important reasons is that those who are eligible for jury service are drawn from the electoral register. When we talk about the completeness of the register, we are not talking only about our democratic system and the voting system, important though it is. We are talking also about the criminal justice system and its credibility.

We all saw the terrible riots which scarred English cities last summer. That is all the more reason to ensure that all groups in our society are effectively represented on our juries. The last thing we want is an electoral register which contains a disproportionately large number of white middle-class people who are in turn represented on the juries that are selected. That is no way to enhance the credibility of our criminal justice system.

It is important to recognise that electoral registers are used to establish people’s creditworthiness. Whether they may have a mortgage is quite often defined by their presence on the electoral register. Also, it is seldom mentioned that the police make great use of the electoral register. It is important for the development of our society, as well as for our democracy. In a modern democracy, being on the electoral register is a civic duty and a civic responsibility. That is why we want accuracy in our electoral register. Although we all want accuracy, it is important to recognise that standing alongside it there must be completeness as well. Those are the twins that should go together in the legislation.

Despite the debates that we have had, our concern is that the Government place far too much emphasis on accuracy at the expense of completeness. We want to see the two going together. That is important not just when we reach a fully fledged individual electoral registration system, but in the transition system. Schedule 5 is a vital part of the legislation. It takes us through the transition and ensures that when individual registration is introduced it has the support of the people of this country, including potential and actual electors. I hope that the Committee will consider the schedule carefully and give careful consideration to the amendments for which we argued passionately last Monday—

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Wayne David

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David]

The hon. Gentleman’s comments are inaccurate, because we did not give a commitment to have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty; we gave a commitment to have a referendum if there was a constitution, and there never was a constitution.

We have heard a long and well-argued speech by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). Although many of us on this side of the House would not agree with many of his views, we recognise that the European Scrutiny Committee, and he himself, have done much to ensure that this House will give proper consideration to the Bill. I have to say that I was shocked that the Prime Minister allegedly tried to block the hon. Gentleman’s appointment as Chair of the Committee. I was a member of that Committee for several years, alongside the hon. Gentleman, and I was pleased that when this Bill was presented to Parliament on 11 November last year, the Committee immediately announced its intention to conduct an inquiry and produce a report on the sovereignty clause before the Bill’s Second Reading. This report was extremely helpful during the Second Reading debate, and I am sure that all hon. Members will also find it useful for today’s debate.

I note that it is the intention of the Committee to publish further reports on aspects of the Bill, and I welcome that too. It is important to note that this is the first occasion on which the Committee has conducted pre-legislative scrutiny; I hope that its work is recognised by the Government and that the practice will be more widely adopted. Even more importantly, I sincerely hope that the Government will change the Bill in the light of the Committee’s report.

I have two disappointments. The first is that the Government did not allow the Committee sufficient time between First and Second Readings to hold thorough public evidence sessions. Given that the Committee stage of the Bill is being drawn out over several weeks—indeed, we do not even officially know when the other Committee days will be held—it is clear that the Government are in no rush to put this Bill on the statute book. Why then did they not allow the Committee more time for its evidence sessions? Are they afraid of more scrutiny?

My other disappointment is that the Foreign Secretary was not prepared to give evidence to the Committee. If he is so sure that his Bill is as robust as he says, why would he not appear before the Committee, put his case and answer questions? We all know that the reality of the Bill does not match the rhetoric that the Government employed. This so-called sovereignty clause is not what its advocates claim it is. It does not challenge the supremacy of European law; nor should it. It does not alter the nature of European law, change the relationship of European law or elevate the sovereignty of Parliament to a higher level.

In fact, what is most striking about the sovereignty clause is that it does not even mention the word “sovereignty”. It is simply a reaffirmation of the status quo. As the explanatory notes admit, this is merely a declaratory clause. It reflects the dualist nature of the UK’s constitutional model, by which I mean that EU law has effect in the UK only because of a decision taken by Parliament. In this case, the relevant legislation is the European Communities Act 1972. That is what clause 18 confirms, and as such it is nothing more than an exercise in legislative tautology—a puffed-up reiteration of what the law of the land already states.

So why have the Govt chosen to draft this clause? The reason we have been given is, in part, in the explanatory notes, which explain that in the metric martyrs case—Thoburn v. Sunderland City Council 2002—an attempt was made by counsel for Sunderland city council, Eleanor Sharpston QC, who is now the Advocate General at the Court of Justice, to argue before the divisional court that the binding effect of the EC treaty in domestic law depended, in part, on the higher principle of the supremacy of EU law. Eleanor Sharpston argued that the EC treaty did not owe its authority wholly to an Act of Parliament. That doubt, expressed by one individual in one case, is being used by the Govt to try to justify this clause.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the case also clearly rejected the notion that EU institutions or legislation could somehow limit the powers of Parliament?

[Mr David]

Indeed, and that is my next point. Significantly, the argument made by Eleanor Sharpston QC was rejected.

Business of the House (Thursday)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Wayne David

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) made a good point, because tomorrow is not just about raising the cap. It is about the consequences of raising the cap, which will have an effect through the recruitment of foreign students. Earlier, a point was made very eloquently by a Northern Ireland Member about the effect on Northern Ireland students. Tomorrow we will have to cover a range of issues, which will be difficult to do in the short time that we have.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Hon. Members have referred to Northern Ireland, but the regulations are specific to England. Of course, we are concerned about the whole United Kingdom, however, and we are talking about a variable geometry over the United Kingdom. Is it not right and proper, therefore, that we should have plenty of time to compare and contrast the situation in England with that in the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Mr Jones]

That is a very important point, which the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) eloquently made earlier. The changes that we make tomorrow will affect students not only on the mainland, but in those countries with devolved Administrations.