Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 163 to 167.

[Mr Heath]

These are minor amendments to clarify the position on ministerial responsibilities in relation to the constituencies provisions of the Bill. Responsibility for elections law, including parliamentary constituencies, is now exercisable by the Lord President and the Secretary of State, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, as Lord President of the Council, now has responsibility for political and constitutional reform. That was effected by the Lord President of the Council Order 2010, which provides that functions under various Acts, including the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, are exercisable concurrently by the Lord President and the Secretary of State. In the case of that Act, “the Secretary of State” includes the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who retain functions relating to boundary commissions in their parts of the United Kingdom.

The order states that references to the 1986 Act include references to it as amended by any enactment already made but not yet in force. It is arguable that that implies that such a reference does not include a reference to that Act as amended by a subsequent enactment. The amendment therefore provides that the reference to the 1986 Act in the order is to be read as a reference to the Act as amended by the Bill.

Amendments 163 to 167 are to clause 11 on the relationship between the changes to parliamentary constituencies and the constituencies of the National Assembly for Wales. They make similar changes to those in the Lord President of the Council Order 2010, so that the clause refers to both the Secretary of State and the Lord President of the Council, and not just to the Secretary of State. That is done in the same way as in part 1 of the Bill, which provides that the Minister means the Lord President or the Secretary of State. I hope that that is perfectly clear to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. The amendments selected in this group include some that are proposing special privileges—some might say gerrymandering—for certain constituencies, and these have been ruled to be in order, while others suggesting gerrymandering, such as my own, which suggests that the traditional rotten borough of Retford should be created, as it was in 1832, have been ruled out of order. [Hon. Members: “It is not this group. It is the next group.”] Well, I am making my point now anyway. Why have some been ruled in and some ruled out, when they are all about gerrymandering the boundaries?

[The Chairman of Ways and Means]

I welcome your opinion, but you cannot discuss amendments that have not been selected.



Clause 9

Number and distribution of seats

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 364, page 7, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert—

‘UK Electoral quota

1 The UK Electoral Quota shall be defined as the total electorate of the United Kingdom on the designated enumeration day divided by 650.’.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 41, page 7, line 28, leave out ‘600’ and insert

‘gradually reduced to 600 in accordance with the terms of rule 1A.

1A (1) In each periodic report submitted by a Boundary Commission under section 3(2), the overall number of constituencies in each part of the United Kingdom shall be no more than in the previous report.

(2) The Boundary Commissions shall meet at the outset of each periodic review to determine the overall number of constituencies in the United Kingdom, and the number to be allocated to each of the four parts of the United Kingdom by each Commission, in accordance with rule 8.

(3) The Boundary Commissions shall ensure that the overall number of constituencies in the United Kingdom is reduced in each succeeding periodic report to no more than 600 by 2029 in their fourth/fifth periodic reports.’.

Amendment 67, page 7, line 28, leave out ‘600’ and insert ‘585’.

Amendment 74, page 7, line 28, leave out ‘600’ and insert ‘500’.

Amendment 227, page 7, line 28, leave out ‘600’ and insert—

‘no fewer than 588 and no more than 612’.

Amendment 259, page 7, line 28, leave out ‘600’ and insert ‘650’.

Amendment 42, page 7, leave out lines 35 to 37 and insert—

‘U/T where U is the electorate of the United Kingdom minus the electorate of the constituencies mentioned in rule 6 and T is the overall number of constituencies in the United Kingdom determined by the Boundary Commissions under rule 1A above.’.

Amendment 68, page 7, line 35, leave out ‘U/598’ and insert ‘U/583’.

Amendment 75, page 7, line 35, leave out ‘U/598’ and insert ‘U/498’.

Amendment 260, page 7, line 35, leave out ‘U/598’ and insert ‘U/648’.

Amendment 228, page 9, line 40, at end insert—

‘Variation in number of constituencies

8A (8) A Boundary Commission shall have power to recommend that the number of constituencies in the relevant part of the United Kingdom should be greater or smaller than the number determined in accordance with the allocation method set out in rule 8.

(9) The number so recommended must be no less than 98 per cent. and no more than 102 per cent. of the number so determined.’.

[Chris Bryant]

Amendment 364 would replace the first subsection of clause 9, which states that the number of constituencies in the United Kingdom shall be 600, with the proposal:

“The UK Electoral Quota shall be defined as the total electorate of the United Kingdom on the designated enumeration day divided by 650.”

I am sure that all hon. Members will note that 650 is the present number of Members of Parliament, as opposed to the 600 that the Bill proposes. I am opposed for a series of reasons to the Government’s proposal to change the number of seats and to fix it at 600. First, they are rigging the number of seats. The 600 seats figure did not appear in any party’s manifesto. The Liberal Democrats mentioned 500 MPs in their manifesto, while the Conservatives had a manifesto commitment to reduce the number of seats by 10%, which would have taken the number down to 585. Neither of those figures is in front of us. Why might that possibly be? If those two parties were doing a deal, it would be reasonable to assume that we would end somewhere between the 500 seats mentioned in one manifesto and the 585 mentioned in the other. In fact, they have gone for a completely new figure, which seems to have been plucked out of the air.

Points of Order

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. A few moments ago, in response to my question about Royal Mail, the Leader of the House said that he would seek to ensure that the House was sitting when the statement on the decision was made. Do you agree with me that that is a cop out? Should not statements on matters as important as the future of Royal Mail be made first of all to this House?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record. Mr Speaker has also made it clear that he expects all statements to be made first in the House. We are all well aware of that.

[Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you will be aware of the concern expressed during business questions about the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, especially in view of the comments made by the Clerk of the House that it might result in the issue being debated in the courts rather than in Parliament. The Leader of the House said that we would have a lot of time to discuss the Bill, but I am slightly concerned that the Order Paper shows that proceedings in Committee of the whole House will be completed in two hours. I am sure that that must be a printing error, but it would be helpful if he could confirm that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am sure that the Leader of the House will be able to clarify that point.

[Sir George Young]

It is indeed two days. Two hours would not be acceptable.

Privilege

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Before I call the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) to move the motion, I remind the House that it concerns the narrow issue of whether the matter should be referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. It is not a general debate on the issues and I would be grateful if hon. Members could bear that in mind; otherwise I will have to remind them. The rules governing this debate are set out on pages 167-8 of “Erskine May”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. This is an important issue and there are many with concerns, in all parts of the House, but before I call the next speaker, may I remind hon. Members that there is a debate to follow? A little brevity would help.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), to whom I offered my support previously, and I welcome Mr Speaker’s decision to allow the motion to be debated.

The issue about the distinction between the Government and Parliament has not been so strong in the past. My view is that the Government are right that the Metropolitan police’s operational decisions rest with it. However, Parliament still has a role, and the purpose of Parliament’s privileges is to protect our constituents. If we do not stand up for our constituents by using our bite rather than just our bark, we cannot protect our constituents. Only yesterday, I was contacted by a whistleblower, who explained to me evidence of corrupt practices in family proceedings. Obviously, I will bring that issue to the House in more detail later, when I have more evidence. Had that person been concerned that the communication had been tapped, all sorts of problems would have been caused. Some people have been so worried about their communications being tapped that they have wanted to see me in person in a place where they could not be overheard. If our constituents are to have confidence that they can communicate with us about parliamentary proceedings, we need to protect their rights.

Andrew France is a constituent of mine. He was threatened that his daughter would be taken into care if he spoke to me about his case. Luckily, his case has come to an end, so he can talk to me. However, Parliament should take action to deal with such issues. The law on these matters is interesting: there are many different international examples, of which I have many details if any hon. Member wishes to see them. Under article 47 of the German constitution, there is a protection for members of the Bundestag from having to give details of information that they have received. It is so important that people are able to provide information in private about proceedings in Parliament.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The debate is a narrow one. As much as the hon. Gentleman is tempted to do so, we cannot range all around the world. He must keep to the subject.

[John Hemming]

Around the world, there are good examples of why we must pass the motion in order to protect our constituents. I support the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

Some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises rather reinforce the view that there might be a justification not just for a Standards and Privileges Committee inquiry but a full judicial inquiry, especially to consider the police’s non-use of powers, which is in itself an abuse of power.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are not debating a judicial inquiry.

[Paul Farrelly]

I will refer to the police and other inquiries, which will no doubt go on in parallel, in a few moments, if I may.

Only now are more people coming out of the woodwork to naysay what Mr Coulson told us. Clearly, that is a matter that the Committee on Standards and Privileges will want to look into in order to get to the bottom of it.

Finally, I want to touch on two loose ends from our report, of which the Standards and Privileges Committee might find it useful to be advised. First, the whole affair was reactivated by the case of Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the Professional Footballers Association, whose phone was hacked by Mr Mulcaire. The News of the World was in pursuit of sex stories in football. It sent its chief reporter, Mr Thurlbeck, to knock on Mr Taylor’s door, on a Saturday afternoon, in the north of England, presumably with the intention of publishing the next day. However, after Mr Taylor’s lawyers denied the story that he was having an affair and made legal threats, the story was spiked personally by Mr Coulson, as we established. We followed the trail as far as a conversation he had with his legal manager, Tom Crone, before spiking it. All Mr Coulson told us was that he had not read a story. We were unable to fathom details of the discussions that he had with Mr Crone before spiking it because, he said, he was unable to remember them. We thought it would be highly unusual for an editor to accept a denial at face value. From my experience in journalism, an editor would be expected to ask, “How can we stand this story up?” The answer, we thought, would inevitably involve some discussions of the source of the story. We suspected, although we could not prove it, that the story was spiked in part, at least, because any libel suit would have exposed the phone hacking that was going on.

In case it is of help to the Standards and Privileges Committee, let me say that Mr Crone is also a very interesting character, who is legendary at the News of the World. On two occasions he misled our Select Committee. He denied admitting a pay-off to Mr Clive Goodman after he got out of jail. He also misled our Committee on the identity of the junior reporter who was involved in transcribing phone-hacked messages.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We cannot rehearse the work of the Committee by providing it with evidence. We have to stick to the subject of the debate.

[Paul Farrelly]

I am about to end my speech, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, as Mr Crone is a key player, I urge the Committee to interview him as well.

What is happening is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that the police have not fully notified people whose telephone PINs were retrieved during the investigation, and who clearly include many Members of Parliament; it is unacceptable for the police to say that there are just “a “handful of victims”, given that the number is growing by the day; and it is unacceptable for the police to say that they conducted a full and rigorous inquiry. They did not, the News of the World did not, and the Press Complaints Commission did not. It is time that the position was rectified, and a referral of the issue to the Committee on Standards and Privileges will go a long way towards doing that.

Points of Order

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I ask your advice? Tomorrow the House will vote for the Chair of the new Backbench Business Committee. Given that the aim of the Committee is to give Back Benchers control over non-Government business, would it not be inappropriate for members of the Government and Opposition Front-Bench Members to vote in the election tomorrow?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. The advice is that on the one hand, there is no provision in the Standing Orders barring any Member from taking part in the proceedings; on the other hand, voting is not compulsory. I am sure that Members will listen to that advice. This is ultimately a matter for individuals to decide for themselves, rather than for the Chair to decide.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It may be helpful to the House to know that the business managers on the part of the Government—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, myself, the Chief Whip and the Deputy Chief Whips—will not take part in that election.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I think the answer has been made clear. It will be interesting reading for other hon. Members to take that advice on board.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I received an answer today to a parliamentary question to the Treasury on the distributional impact of a 1% rise in VAT. The Treasury answered me by saying that it cannot provide that information. Is it in order for me to ask for a Treasury Minister to come to the House urgently to explain what the distributional impact of a 1% rise in VAT would be? Is it not extraordinary that, on the day before the Budget, the Treasury seems unable to give that information?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am sure that, with his experience, the hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for the Chair, but he has got it on the record, and no doubt if he puts a message in to the Speaker tomorrow, it could be looked at in due course.

[Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I welcome you to the Chair? On the basis of my experience, there is no doubt that the Treasury has that information. The only question is why it is unwilling to bring it to the House. On a different issue, may I seek your guidance on urgent questions? I asked the Education Secretary a particular question, which was whether private schools could reopen as free schools and then pass on their school fees to be paid for by the taxpayer, rather than by parents. Is there any obligation on the Secretary of State to answer an urgent question in the House, or will the Department follow the path of the Treasury and not answer the question even when it knows the answer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record. It is not a matter for me, but I am sure that it will be read tomorrow.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. At 9.25 this morning, the Department of Health announced a major revision of the NHS operating framework, and the story ran in the media all morning. I checked repeatedly for a written ministerial statement; it did not appear. There was no copy of the announced changes until 12.40 pm, more than three hours later. The statement deals with major changes in health policy, including the removal of guaranteed access to a general practitioner and the guaranteed 18-week waiting time for hospital treatment, and the lowering of the threshold of four-hour waits at accident and emergency. Should there not have been an oral statement to the House on these major NHS policy changes, not a written statement issued three hours late?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That matter is now on the record. If the hon. Lady were to table an urgent question, I am sure it would be considered through the usual channels.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to the point of order made by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), Mr Deputy Speaker. It is surely right that the Backbench Business Committee should be elected predominantly by Back Benchers, not by Front Benchers. I fully understand and accept the point made by the Deputy Leader of the House that the Leader of the House and the business managers will not take part in that vote, but may we publish not how people vote, but whether they vote tomorrow, so that we can know whether Ministers vote?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman rightly makes his point, which I am sure will be taken on board and considered in due course, but it is not for the Chair to make that decision today.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, the Chancellor announced on the BBC a major review of public sector pensions, but today the Prime Minister was unable to confirm the terms of reference for that investigation. Have you received representations from the Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to come to the House to tell us the terms of the review, or would the Secretary of State for Defence like to enlighten us in the next debate?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Many points of order are being made that are not a matter for the Chair. Once again, the matter has been put on the record.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On 10 June, I asked the Minister for Housing a question concerning the powers that Southampton city council has concerning homes in multiple occupation, and in regulation. The answer I received that those powers would be maintained has proved not to be true and to be seriously misleading. Is it in order for you to ask the Minister to come to the Chamber to give me an answer that is both true and not misleading?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The point has been well made and it is on the record. It is not for the Chair to decide, but I am sure that the usual channels will pick up that point.