Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Mark Field Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the fact that the Government have tabled the new clause. Broadly speaking, the Minister is absolutely right that it was never anybody’s intention that ordinary newspapers, magazines, television broadcasts and so on should be included in the referendum expenses regime. However, there are some complications because of some of the terms used in the new clause.

I note that the Minister said en passant that the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) managed to come up with a report despite the time available, but of course the lack of availability of time was entirely down to the Minister, not down to anybody else. As the Minister noted, the Committee produced its own version of what a new clause might look like, and a lot of us have been lobbied by different parts of the media in favour of some version or other of an amendment such as this one. The Minister said that the Government’s version was slightly different, and I hope that he will be able to take us through why.

The new clause mentions, first:

“Expenses incurred in respect of the publication of any matter relating to the referendum, other than an advertisement, in…a newspaper or periodical”.

As I understand it, it is remarkably difficult to specify in law what is a newspaper or periodical. So far as I can see, there is no one clear definition of newspaper or periodical. I assume that the Government understand “newspaper or periodical” to be the same, not two separate concepts.

I can find two instances of a definition in statute. The first is the Newspaper Libel and Registration Act 1881, which states:

“The word ‘newspaper’ shall mean any paper containing public news, intelligence, or occurrences, or any remarks or observations therein printed for sale, and published in England or Ireland periodically, or in parts or numbers at intervals not exceeding twenty-six days between the publication of any two such papers, parts, or numbers.

Also any paper printed in order to be dispersed, and made public weekly or oftener,”—

“oftener” is slightly strange language—

“or at intervals not exceeding twenty-six days, containing only or principally advertisements.”

I presume that the Government are not relying on that definition, because it applies only to England and Ireland, which is in a Bill that tried to ensure that all newspapers and periodicals were registered. That registration process no longer exists—now anyone is free to publish a newspaper or a periodical.

The second instance is in section 7(5) of the Defamation Act 1952, which states that

“the expression ‘newspaper’ means any paper containing public news or observations thereon, or consisting wholly or mainly of advertisements, which is printed for sale and is published in the United Kingdom either periodically or in parts or numbers at intervals not exceeding thirty-six days.”

I am sure that keen-eared Members noted that between 1881 and 1952, there was a difference of 10 days in the frequency with which a printed item might be described as a newspaper or a periodical.

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

That may have had something to do with Christmas and a monthly publication potentially covering five weeks at that time of year. However, the shadow Minister may have stronger ideas about the reason for that difference—or mistake.

[Chris Bryant]

It seems slightly odd to go to 36 days because there is no specific definition of the date of publication. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right that if the Christmas edition of a monthly publication is published around 15 November—after doubtless being written around 15 July—there might be more than 26 days between it and the next edition. However, large elements of the Defamation Act have been repealed, although the precise definition of newspaper seems still to exist. The territorial extent of that Act is not only England and Ireland, but Wales and Scotland.

Election law has for some considerable time made allowance for newspapers and periodicals so that, for example, an edition of The Times that advocates people voting Conservative or The Guardian bizarrely supporting the Liberal Democrats in a general election are not suddenly caught for election expenditure. I understand that, but the new clause needs greater clarity, not least because many more people now engage in publication. Under the 1881 Act, people had to be licensed to do that. Today, anybody can publish, and there is no specification in law of the number of copies that must be published, only of the frequency. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary’s Conservative association produces a regular newsletter. Whether it is counted as a newspaper or periodical is of material significance to election expenditure.

I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can first explain his understanding of newspaper or periodical and from where he derives the definition, not least because the new clause does not refer to the derivation of the interpretation.

Secondly, subsection (b) of new clause 19 refers to

“a broadcast made by the British Broadcasting Corporation”

or Channel 4, but Channel 4 is going to be part of the BBC in the near future—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Field]

I agree with what the Government are trying to do in new clause 19; they have taken on board some of the concerns expressed by the Select Committee. However, I want to ask the Minister a question about the increasingly important influence of the new media. Does he not feel—I appreciate it will not apply to this particular referendum—that much of our legislation, particularly that dealing with media comment, is now ripe for a much more radical overhaul? This could be the first referendum in which we see a significant amount of money being spent by online providers trying to put their message across—in both the English and the Welsh language, I suspect—on this issue. Much of the legislation already in place looks more towards 20th-century and perhaps even, in some cases, 19th-century media. Much of the new media will have a greater impact—not just through blogs, but through a whole range of forums coming under the auspices of existing magazines and periodicals—so I would like to know what indications the Government have had about the likely costs and whether they will count towards the amount of election expenditure.

It strikes me that we are now living in a much-changed world. Younger voters in particular are less likely to look at newspapers, periodicals or even the television as the most important mechanism for getting comment on political and other related matters. There is concern that a great deal of our legislation requires a much more radical overhaul than people appear to have in mind. Given the context of where we are today, however, the new clause provides a sensible way forward, taking into account many of the concerns expressed by the all-party group.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) for raising a number of questions. Let me step back a little and explain why we tabled the new clause.

The problem arises from the definition of the word “material” in schedule 13 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The reason for the concern —some media organisations were worried—is that there was some ambiguity about the meaning. We think “material” means leaflets and other campaigning items, but we decided to fix any ambiguity.

The hon. Member for Rhondda asked me why we prefer our new clause to the amendment that the Committee had tabled. That amendment changed section 117 of the 2000 Act, with the effect that media costs were still categorised as referendum expenses within the regulatory regime. The amendment further specified that although these were referendum expenses, there was no need for individual bodies to be permitted participants if they wanted to spend more than that. That might not have been the Committee’s intention, but that is how we thought it would work. By comparison, our amendment simply says that those media costs are not referendum expenses at all, so they are not subject to the regulatory regime set down by the Act. We think that that provides a more direct and less confusing approach than the Committee set out in its amendment. Our new clause has the same spirit and purpose, but we prefer it, as I have explained.

The hon. Member for Rhondda asked a number of questions. As to the definition and use of language, our approach is to use the equivalent provisions in the PPRA that regulate third-party activity in elections, which have been in place since 2000. The commission responsible for regulating the provisions is happy with how it has been defined and will issue some guidance setting out the case in a little more detail. As I have learned, it is not terribly helpful—to use a ghastly phrase—to have undue specificity on the face of the Bill, whereby every single possible definition of a media outlet is set out. If that is done, but one possible meaning is not captured by the definitions, it makes it easy for a person to argue that they are not covered. Having a broader definition, about which the commission can issue guidance, is much more likely to hold up legally, particularly when it comes to some of the new media to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster has rightly drawn our attention.

I shall come to my hon. Friend’s point about the future in a moment, but we have followed the approach in the PPRA and made it explicit that, in the case of this particular referendum, the regulations will be the same as those applying to third-party activity in elections. I think that, because the referendum and the elections are to take place on the same day, it is important for us to apply the same regime to both.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I think I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In the previous Government we were not always as alive as we might have been to the fact that this House does its job best when it is most free to be able to do so. However, the difference that he has to face is that unless he intends to agree with the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle, he is supporting a Bill that wants to cut the number of MPs from 650 to 600. That will, in effect, cut the number of Back Benchers, because it does not cut the number of Ministers. My argument is that if we are going to cut one group, we should cut the other. That is entirely in line with the new clause.

[Mr Mark Field]

Everybody accepts that collective responsibility is an important function, particularly in this media-savvy world in which we live, where it is important to ensure that any Government do not look like a shambles. Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that there is a distinction between collective responsibility for much of the legislation that goes through this House and this sort of Bill—a constitutional Bill that should not be subject to quite the same shackles to which he has referred?

[Chris Bryant]

I agree. That is why I have been trying to argue that Members such as the hon. Gentleman who have taken a long-standing interest in constitutional issues should feel free not necessarily to vote with their Front Benchers. I know that he has already exercised that right on several occasions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I am not suggesting that that would be the case. I am picking up on points made during the debate, which I think is part of the job of a Minister responding to a debate. The hon. Member for Foyle expressed the hope that a reduction in the number of Ministers in the House of Commons would not result in an increase in the number of Ministers in the House of Lords. I suggested that I agreed with his view. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex does not agree with it. So be it. That is the nature of debate.

[Mr Mark Field]

The Deputy Leader of the House has made it clear that he wishes to respond to the contributions made in the debate. I think that one of the most important contributions, with which I entirely concur, came from the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). She considered it highly regrettable that a Bill of such constitutional importance was being rushed through so quickly and so early in the Parliament, in a way that gave the public—certainly those who are interested in these matters—the impression that it was being introduced simply to keep in place the current arrangements introduced by the current coalition. She suggested that it was solely a result of the electoral arithmetic that obtained in May 2010, rather than having been introduced in the long-term interests of Parliament for decades and, indeed, centuries ahead.

[Mr Heath]

That is a Second Reading point, but it is not a point that I agree with or accept in any way. We have already had extensive debate on the timing of the Bill; I believe we have given that subject a substantial amount of debating time. The most important point is that it is necessary to make rapid progress on the Bill if we are to have in good order both the referendum and the boundary changes suggested in the Bill.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Mark Field Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brady]

Yes, we have reciprocal arrangements, although they are often not entirely symmetrical. For example, I believe that there is a qualifying period of residence for a British citizen in the Republic of Ireland before the reciprocal arrangement comes into effect. As a Brady, I hold no malice whatever towards those of Irish extraction, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows well, we allow an entirely different situation to exist in relation to citizens of Commonwealth countries. We have reciprocal arrangements with some of the smaller countries—typically the Caribbean countries, some of which have provided a significant number of residents in this country. However, the bigger Commonwealth countries such as India, Pakistan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand offer no reciprocal rights to British citizens living in those countries, even though we allow their citizens to vote when they are here.

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

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is also a distinction to be drawn between voting in general elections, where the rights of residents are important, and voting in a referendum involving constitutional issues that relate less to a right of residence and more to the issues that will affect our children and grandchildren and future generations? In such cases, the country of which a person is a citizen is of more central importance than where they happen to live.

--- Later in debate ---

[Natascha Engel]

I was coming to that; that was my joke. [Interruption.] All right, I will say it again in a moment. I am a former trustee of the UK Youth Parliament, honorary president of the British Youth Council, a former chair of the all-party group on youth affairs and—are hon. Members ready?—I speak as a former 16-year-old. [Laughter.] I thank hon. Members for laughing at that. I could not vote when I was 16, and although it was almost 30 years ago I remember how deeply frustrating it was not to be able to take part in something as important as voting was to me then.

[Mr Mark Field]

Surely the logic of the hon. Lady’s position is to say that everyone who was born before 6 May 1997 should be entitled to vote in the referendum, if that is to be relevant on the day of the now-fixed election in May 2015. Why does she not have that date in mind? Is it the absurdity of people being entitled to vote in the referendum at age 14 years and eight months that dissuades her from going down that route?

[Natascha Engel]

I think that falls outside the scope of the amendment. It is important to establish that we are arguing that the voting age should not be raised. Referendums are very rare in this country and this referendum is specifically about voting reform and changing the system under which we vote in parliamentary elections, which are open to participation by anyone who is 18 or over on the day of the election in question. My argument is that we should not raise that voting age above the age of 18. Someone whose 18th birthday happens to fall a day after the election might be knocking on 23 before they get a vote, especially if we set in stone the five-year voting period. The almost unique opportunity presented by the referendum will affect people who will be 16 and over on the day of the referendum and it is very important for them to be able to participate in the referendum because it will affect the voting system in which they will be asked to vote on the day of the general election in 2015. We should therefore allow them to participate, as we have already told them that they will be allowed to participate in the election at the age of 18. This is an almost unique opportunity to lower the voting age to 16.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

Given the previous Government’s record on this matter, I would have thought that my hon. Friend would recognise that we are allowing extra time today to take account of the fact that we have just had a rightly lengthy and well attended statement. We granted extra time so that that statement did not unduly eat into the time available for debating this Bill. As I said, I would have thought that my hon. Friend, given his concern for Parliament, would have welcomed the progress made. We may not have gone as far as he would have wished, but I think that even he would recognise that we have gone some way further than the previous Administration did. I see him nodding his assent.

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

I accept, and give credit to party managers for ensuring, that we have a certain protection of time up to 11 pm today. However, does the Minister understand our concern that later in our consideration—certainly for the third and fourth day—a significant number of amendments have been tabled, so that we may not have enough time to debate the many issues surrounding exempted constituencies, for example, simply because a guillotine will come into force at 11pm or some other specified time?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly sensible point. We have allowed the number of days allotted and included some extra time, but we will clearly keep that under review. He will have noticed that on the fourth day—the same day as the comprehensive spending review—we have allowed an extra two hours for the Committee to sit. We have tried to take that into account, and it is also in the interest of Members to balance the time allotted to different parts of the Bill. As I say, however, we will keep this under review and see how the debate progresses. I have heard what my hon. Friend says, and I will review progress.

[Mr Field]

The Minister says that he is going to keep this under review, so would he consider changing this programme motion in order to grant extra days of debate or put back the end-point? If we vote for the motion today, will it be set in stone, as reviewing it might not satisfy those of us who are concerned that elements of the Bill will not get the full consideration they need?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend will know that on Second Reading, when the House voted by a considerable margin to support the principle of the Bill, it also supported the initial programme motion of 6 September, which set the number of days for debate. I listened very carefully to the wide-ranging debate on that day and picked out the issues that appeared to be of concern to Members on both sides of the House. That is what has driven this second programme motion—to try to ensure that the key issues are debated. Today, for example, we are to debate the date of the referendum and the question that it will put, and those issues will be debated. As I said, I listened carefully to the whole of the previous debate, so I believe we have captured the key issues. The House has already accepted that five days in Committee is the right period for consideration of the Bill.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Mark Field Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Straw]

The parliamentary answers I gave were that the costs, on a variety of assumptions, would be somewhere between £80 million and £100 million. That was not plucked from the air and of course, if I had stayed in office, as I wish I had, we would have sought to refine the costs.

Part 2 of the Bill is one of the most partisan proposals we have seen in recent years. It proposes arbitrarily to cut the number of Members to 600, to redraw parliamentary boundaries according to inflexible new arithmetical rules based on an electoral register from which millions of eligible voters are missing and, extraordinarily, as we have heard, under clause 10 public inquiries by the Boundary Commission into the Government’s preliminary proposals are explicitly to be prohibited.

If enacted, those proposals would represent the very antithesis of the high ideals that the Deputy Prime Minister initially set out for his political reforms. They have nothing whatever to do with those high ideals. Instead, they represent the worst kind of political skulduggery for narrow party advantage. There is no need for Members on the Government Benches to take that from me. All they need to do is to look at the ConservativeHome website and the detailed statement put there today by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field)—to coincide with this debate, I assume. He says that

“the current proposals for AV and the reduction in number of parliamentary constituencies are being promoted by Party managers as an expedient way to prevent our principal political opponents from recapturing office.”

That is the truth and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying it.

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

I entirely stand by those words. I believe that is one of the problems with what is being proposed. However, as a matter of context, and to put the record straight, it is also fair to say that the current boundaries are entirely unacceptable and were maintained, particularly in relation to the over-representation of Wales and Scotland, by the Labour Government. Both sides have pretty dirty hands on the matter, but I very much agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said. It is quite wrong for any constitutional changes to be promoted, as traditionally they have been on both sides, simply for the narrow advantage of one side of the House.

[Mr Straw]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for accepting that what he said this morning is what he still believes this afternoon.

Constitution and Home Affairs

Mark Field Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2010 Commons Chamber

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

Parliament has returned to a sea of fresh faces, but unlike you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I recognise hardly any of them. They include my brother-in-law, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), and my former association chairman, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). The party political landscape is transformed and there is a feeling of refreshed optimism, but if we do not apply a new way of thinking to fixing our nation’s problems, the very same old politics will, I fear, return.

I shall unashamedly concentrate my observations on economic matters, in my capacity as the Member for the City of London, and on constitutional reform, which I broadly welcome as a long-time and robust supporter of House of Lords elections. I fear that the spirit of the past couple of years has been uncompromisingly ugly for those of us who instinctively support capitalism, free markets and global trade. There is widespread, almost open, hostility to banks, bankers, big business, the wealthy, private education, private health and at times even to the profit motive. That stands in stark contrast to the last time that the Conservatives came into government 31 years ago, when the case for empowering people, the smaller state and individual responsibility had already been made.

The election is already behind us, but I fear that we have a coalition Government in place that lack any explicit mandate to take the very tough economic decisions that are required as a matter of great urgency to get our public finances back on track. The key problem that faces the Government is a lack of public support for the urgent reductions in public expenditure that are now absolutely necessary. In large part, that is a result of the reluctance of the entire political class, during the recent election campaign, to level with the British public about the economic crisis that lies ahead. We are yet to strike at the core of the former Government’s rhetoric, and their narrative remains too dominant for my liking. Labour will now be able to sit on the sidelines and blame the new Government for everything that it postponed addressing. For example, we acquiesce in levelling higher taxes on the wealthy without making clear the very practical reasons why, in an age of unprecedented global mobility, the brightest and best of our young people will simply leave these shores if their plans to create wealth and promote enterprise are stifled. If the coalition is to be a success—and, more importantly, if our country is to lift itself out of this economic mire—we need first to make the case for a smaller, more efficient state through public spending cuts, and, secondly, to be strong enough to make the case for an internationally attractive and competitive tax system.

I understand the public’s appetite for retribution when it comes to the financial services sector, much of which is housed in my constituency, and the feeling that the banking fraternity should take the lion’s share of new taxes. But we must somehow separate sensible measures to curb excess and to share fairly the national burden from very punitive measures that are designed only to twist the knife and that have great potential to drive away the wealth and employment creators of the future.

There has been much talk about revitalising Britain’s manufacturing and export-led growth, but this prompts the obvious question, in the current economic climate, of who exactly will be doing the importing. The UK must be eternally grateful that we have stayed out of the eurozone, but the tumultuous events on the continent, which are only starting to play themselves out, will have a massive effect on us, regardless. After all, that struggling eurozone accounts for 60% of our export market. That is very bad news for the UK. Not only will our European trading partners be importing less, but the likely rapid depreciation in the value of the euro will also detrimentally affect our exporters. One of the most worrying aspects of the UK’s economic performance, particularly in the past two years, has been our failure to take greater advantage of the significant 20 to 25% devaluation in our currency to expand our export markets. That will augur very badly for us if sterling appreciates against the euro in the months ahead.

On constitutional reform, I must confess to being rather less a Conservative and more a radical in this area. In my very first speech in the House, nine years ago, I made very clear my support for a wholly-elected House of Lords, and a few years ago I suggested a set of proposals that would have helped to tie up the anomalies that had been left by devolution and the incomplete reform of the House of Lords. As a result of this interest, I have found very disquieting the recent press reports that the new coalition proposes—in breach of both election manifestos—to ennoble 200 men and women in order to ensure that the composition of the House of Lords is

“reflective of the share of the vote”

in the recent general election.

Just before the election, I noted that there would be public outrage if a business-as-usual approach to House of Lords appointments was adopted by the political class in the months ahead. In particular, it would be totally unacceptable if any retiring Members of this House who have been reprimanded, been obliged to apologise to the House or had to repay substantial sums following the allowances scandal were now raised to the peerage. The same must apply to the former senior parliamentarians from the Commons who led the absolutely calamitous efforts to prevent the publication of MPs’ expenses through the High Court or the inadequate attempts at reform after the entire scandal broke regarding the employment of relatives at the beginning of 2008. That might be the way that things were done in the past, but it cannot be tolerated now.

It would be unwise to underestimate the challenges ahead for our nation and the challenges that we in the coalition have to take on board. The previous Government left not only a dismal economic legacy, but a discredited political system and woefully inadequate attempts at constitutional reform. An extremely tough road lies ahead, and I fear that the early popularity of the coalition will be very fleeting and that the good will towards it will be very temporary in this country. Accepting that, it would be wise for us to apply integrity, common sense and principle to every political decision that we take. That approach is more likely to receive longer-term political support than the pursuit of an agenda set by public opinion and the media. In looking at both the economy and constitutional reform, I believe we need only take the efforts of the past 13 years as our lesson. Short-termist, incomplete and superficially popular measures have a terrible habit of unravelling before our eyes.