Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Indeed. There is a series of complications that I shall come on to, if my hon. Friend will bear with me for a while. Amendments specifically refer to that point, but they amend the Government’s new schedules rather than the new clause, and I want first to deal with the amendments to new clause 20 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, other colleagues and me.

The first amendment is amendment (a) to new clause 20. I realise that some hon. Members might be slightly confused that there are lots of amendments (a) in this group, because some refer to the new clause and some to each of the new schedules. Amendment (a) to Government new clause 20 states:

“Where the date of the poll for a local authority election in England is the same as the date of the poll for the referendum, the polls are to be taken together.”

That is narrower than that which the Government have provided. The Government are suggesting that the polls can happen together when there is the referendum, and a local authority election in England, and a local referendum in England, and a mayoral election in England. In other words, it is theoretically possible that, if we stick with the Government’s proposal, one voter might come in to vote on the referendum on AV, a local authority election, a local referendum and a mayoral election all at the same time. It is one thing to consider all this in relation to someone coming into a polling station, and people might conclude that it is perfectly legitimate—that there is the franchise for the AV referendum, which we have already discussed, and the franchise for all three other issues, which would be the same—but what happens with postal votes for all those polls? If there are four postal votes and four polling cards, that provides a right old tagliatelle of a constitutional settlement for ordinary voters to try to sort out. That is why our amendment, instead of allowing all four polls at the same time, would allow only a local authority election in England to happen at the same time as the referendum. We do not think that is ideal, but at least it would tidy things up a little. I very much hope that the Minister will accede to that amendment.

Amendment (b) would also amend new clause 20 in relation to Northern Ireland. The Government propose:

“Where the date of the poll for one or more of the following is the same as the date of the poll for the referendum, the polls are to be taken together—

(a) a Northern Ireland Assembly Election;

(b) a Northern Ireland local election.”

In other words, they are providing for all three to happen at the same time. Up to now, there has been no legal provision enabling that to happen in Northern Ireland, which is why the Government are bringing forward relevant statutory instruments. We do not believe it is right to have all three elections at the same time, so we suggest, in a consensual way, that the Government might at least limit the combinations to a degree by taking one of the polls out of the measure.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

A few minutes ago, my hon. Friend was very critical of the Government’s lack of consultation with the devolved interests, but who in Northern Ireland has he consulted regarding his amendment, which would prevent local elections from taking place on the same day as the referendum and Assembly elections? People in Northern Ireland have said that they do not want the referendum on the same day, and that they want the two elections together, but his amendment would mean that the elections could not take place on the same day.

[Chris Bryant]

The difficulty that we have as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition is that if I had tabled an amendment to that effect, it would have been ruled out of order and would not have been considered because we have already debated, in relation to clause 1, amendments on separating the referendum from those elections. I fully understand my hon. Friend’s point and there have been extensive conversations on the amendment over the weekend with a wide variety of his friends and others in Northern Ireland. The point that we are trying to make is fairly simple: combining everything on the same day brings not clarity for voters but more obscurity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

If multiple polling cards go to each individual elector, in a household where there are five people living and two elections taking place, that would be 10 polling cards turning up. Apart from anything else, there is quite a strong likelihood that they will all get binned. The other difficulty is that political parties will step into the breach and produce leaflets which say, “You may not want to vote in the AV referendum, or you may want to vote in a particular way, but don’t forget, you’ve also got the Assembly elections.” Different political parties may want to step into the breach in various ways.

[Mark Durkan]

Surely if we have separate polling cards for each of the polls taking place, whether those are elections or referendums, we will get more of the problem of some cards being delivered and some not, which has been a constant problem in recent elections in Northern Ireland. In my constituency in particular, there has been an ongoing issue concerning postal workers, who feel that they are not getting paid the same for delivering election-related material, whether it is from parties or from the electoral officer. We will only add to those difficulties, which have meant that party material is not delivered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I did not say that. I assume that most Members will have duties in the House and in other places. If they do not, of course they can attend the counts. However, I foresee that most Members of Parliament will have important matters to tackle here, instead of attending counts in local authority areas or in Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly or Welsh Assembly constituencies.

[Mark Durkan]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

As with his lengthy speech, the hon. Gentleman is just going around creating confusion where there is none. The territorial orders that we have laid today—and we have laid them today—will be available for Members in good time for the debate on Report. The debate that we are having today is about new clause 20 and the Government new schedules, which, as he well knows, relate to the law as it currently is, prior to the tabling of the territorial orders, so he is creating a problem where none exists.

[Mark Durkan]

The Minister referred to the fact that the provisions on postal votes in Northern Ireland, as provided for in the Government’s new schedules, are not the same as those provided for elsewhere. Given that he has spent a lot of time dealing with the various Opposition amendments, will he now address that issue? The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said that there could be further amendments from the Government. Will the Minister also address that issue, and tell us whether we are awaiting further amendments from the Government on postal voting in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Harper]

This is not a secret: I set out what we were going to do in the letter that I sent to all hon. Members who took part in the debate on Second Reading, and to the Opposition and the leaders of each party represented in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. What we are going to do is complex, but simultaneously straightforward, which is to have tabled the combination amendments today—that is, the new clause and the Government new schedules, based on existing legislation, which we are debating. The territorial orders updating the legislation have been laid today in the Table Office. When the Committee concludes today, the Government will, as I said in my letter, table amendments that we can debate on Report—if they are selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means—that will be based on the new legislation. The territorial orders that have been laid today will be available in good time for Members to decide whether they want to table any amendments for discussion on Report, because they will be available for Members to see tomorrow. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.

I have set out, at some length, our response to the amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Rhondda. As I said at the beginning of this debate, I would urge hon. Members to support our new clause and our new schedules, and to oppose the hon. Gentleman’s amendments.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I wish to speak very briefly in favour of the new clause. There is a long history in this House of Members challenging the ever-increasing power of the Executive. We heard recently from the Leader of the House, who is not in his place:

“The terms of the trade between Government and Parliament have shifted too far in the executive’s favour. That is not good for Parliament; but neither does it lead to better government.”

The Prime Minister also highlighted those concerns in February, saying:

“We’d want to reduce the power of the executive and increase the power of Parliament even if politics hadn’t fallen into disrepute.”

We also heard from the Deputy Prime Minister before the election, which he described as

“an opportunity to turn the page on decades of relentless centralisation within government.”

He argued for a dispersal of power away from the centre and a cut in the number of Ministers and Government Whips, saying:

“The rules of the game at Westminster are stacked in favour of the ruling party; parliament is rendered largely impotent to hold ministers to account.”

We have heard over the past few days and weeks very strong arguments for equalising the size of constituencies and reducing the number of MPs, but to do that without also reducing the number of Ministers would profoundly undermine the authority of Parliament. The proposal is not radical, or even a solution to the problem that so many hon. Members have identified. It would neither minimise the power of the Executive nor increase that of the legislature. It merely calls for a reduction in the size of Government in line with the planned cuts to the number of Members of Parliament. In effect, it will do no more than prevent trends from getting worse.

If the Government are truly committed to decentralisation, they can demonstrate that today by backing the new clause. I strongly urge them to do that.

[Mark Durkan]

I support the new clause, to which my name, along with those of so many others from different parties, is attached in the unpublished list.

When considering the new clause, the Committee should bear in mind not only the experiences of the parties that form the Government and occupy the Government Benches, but those of the rest of us who come to the Chamber and the Committees of the House and are confronted with the realities of the Government Whip system and Parliamentary Private Secretaries—part of the peculiar ecosystem here—who can represent their constituents but are at times bound not to represent their consciences. The idea that someone can represent their constituents but never their conscience is a peculiar political creation, from which the House should try to get away. It brings politics into some disrepute if we appear effectively to neuter ourselves. The straits into which PPSs are cast are unnecessary; they should be allowed more freedom than they generally exercise or are encouraged or permitted to exercise.

New clause 7 led me to that issue by way of making a general observation about the dominance of the Executive in the House. In recent years there have been attempts to reduce the Executive’s absolute control of the agenda and the timetable, and changes have been made from appointing Chairs of Select Committees to electing them. That is all to the good, but new clause 7 is the reality check. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said, it is the genuine test of whether the new politics means anything.

I have no argument with reducing the number of Members of Parliament. I did not vote for 650 the other night; I am happy if there is a reduction. However, alongside that, we need a reduction in the size and voting dominance of the Executive in the Chamber.

Of course the answer to the problem of the over-supply of Ministers in this House is not to over-supply them in another place. In the previous Parliament not only many Ministers, but Cabinet Ministers—Secretaries of State—sat in another place. I joined others in criticising that lack of accountability. For me, the answer was not to bring Ministers from the Lords into this House—the last thing I wanted was to bring Peter Mandelson back anywhere, not least to the Dispatch Box, given our experiences of the man. On that famous occasion in Hartlepool, he said that he was not a quitter but a fighter. I always believed that his theme tune should have been the Simon and Garfunkel song “The Boxer”—not for the lyrics of the verses but for the chorus, which is simply “Lie la lie” throughout.

[Chris Bryant]

Certainly not “I am just a poor boy”!

[Mark Durkan]

I said, not for any of the words of the verses, but for the chorus. That alone would make a good theme tune for Peter Mandelson.

The answer was not to bring Lords Ministers into this place; the question was: why were there so many Cabinet Ministers in the Lords? The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that there are limits in statute on the number of Cabinet Ministers, but we saw how the previous Government got round that. They went to the limit for Cabinet Ministers and then had a series of ministerial high chairs put around the Cabinet table, so that lots of other Ministers had rights of attendance at Cabinet, simply to ensure that more Members of the House of Commons were in the Cabinet room than would have been there otherwise. That is the sort of lazy, sloppy, self-serving thinking that seizes parties in government. They use and abuse, and bend and flex rules and limits in ways that suit themselves, which does nothing to enhance the reputation of politics in general or this House in particular.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I am not making terribly much progress, but I shall give way to the hon. Member for Foyle.

[Mark Durkan]

May I take up the point that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) raised about the Deputy Leader of the House’s comment that the House should not become concerned with setting an arithmetical limit and seeking an arithmetical formula? The Bill says that there should be 600 MPs and 600 only—not one more and not one less. No flexibility is to be left to the boundary commissions, to Parliament or to anyone else, and constituencies are to be formulated every five years, again on the basis of a tyranny of arithmetic, so how can the Deputy Leader of the House tell us that within this regime of the new arithmetic and the new politics there cannot be arithmetical guarantees on the fixed number of Ministers in this House?

[Mr Heath]

Again, the hon. Gentleman seeks to draw me back to debates that we have had on other parts of the Bill. However, I repeat that I do not think that there is a simple arithmetical relationship between the number of Ministers in the Government and the number of Members in this House, other than the view, which is my view and that of right hon. and hon. Friends, that we need to reduce the scope of Government patronage. That is something in which we are already engaged.