Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Michael Fabricant Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Lords amendments 5 and 23 on the boundary review were inserted into the Bill in the Lords, despite being outside the scope of the Bill. This was clearly done with the intention of preventing the implementation of the boundary review, which was agreed by this Parliament in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011.

The effect of Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu would be to provide for the boundary review to proceed and for the Boundary Commission’s recommendations to come into force, taking effect at the next general election, without a requirement for any further vote in either House of Parliament.

I move this motion as Leader of the House in order to facilitate the debate. In the first instance, Members of this House will decide whether to disagree with the Lords in their amendment, the effect of which would be to put off the boundary review until 2018. If Members approve that motion, we would then go on to vote on whether instead the current boundary review should go ahead without further interference.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

May I say how disappointed I am that it is not the Deputy Prime Minister who is moving the motion? I will have to ask my right hon. Friend the question instead. Is he aware that in 2010 in this Chamber the Deputy Prime Minister made it very clear that the boundary review would be established on the simple principle of fairness, with all votes being of equal worth? Do the Lib Dems not do principle on the 29th of the month, or is it just on Tuesdays?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes his point very well. I will come on to the substance of the issue, but if he will forgive me and the House will bear with me, I wish first to make certain that hon. Members understand the structure of the debate and what the implications of each vote might be.

If the motion to disagree with the Lords in their amendment were agreed, we would go on to vote on the Government amendments in lieu, which would have the effect of proceeding with the boundary review without further votes in Parliament. If, however, hon. Members vote against the motion to disagree, the Lords amendments will be held to have been agreed with, and no further votes will take place on this group. There are therefore three potential outcomes: to agree with the Lords; to disagree and put the Bill back as it was when it left this House; or to settle the boundaries review issue now through the amendments in lieu.

I should make it clear to the House that while as Leader of the House I am enabling the debate, I will also set out my view and that of my party. In doing so, I will not be setting out formally the view of the Government, as there is not a settled coalition view. Accordingly, and as happened in the Lords, collective ministerial responsibility has been set aside for this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

May I first congratulate—

[Michael Fabricant]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I thought that the hon. Gentleman’s thirst might have been quenched, but the truth, as we all know, is that he is unquenchable.

[Michael Fabricant]

I shall take that as a compliment, Mr Speaker. You will know that I am very naive about what goes on on the Back Benches, as it has been a long time since I was last here—apart from the past two weeks, of course. I have been asking questions of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the views expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister, who, sadly, cannot be here today. Do you have the power to call the Deputy Prime Minister to the House to explain why it is suddenly no longer a point of principle for him to vote for a measure that he voted for only a couple of years ago? Perhaps you could explain that to me, Mr Speaker. I am curious.

[Mr Speaker]

No, I do not; no, I could not; and no, it would not be right for the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who is a decent fellow, to seek to embroil me in partisan politics. That would be unworthy of him, and I feel sure that he would not knowingly behave in an unworthy way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Fabricant Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

1. What discussions the Commission has had with the Parliamentary Works Directorate on the possibility of vacating the Palace of Westminster to facilitate the renewal of the fabric of the building and an overhaul of its essential facilities.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

6. What assessment the Commission has made of the risk of exposure to asbestos in the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

8. What plans he has for the Palace of Westminster to close for refurbishment.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Thurso]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. It is difficult at this stage to make a proper assessment of the cost, but we expect the report to contain an assessment of the various costs and, therefore, an indication of the best avenue to pursue. The Commission will ensure that it pursues the best value for money, which will involve a combination of the lowest-cost option and keeping Parliament functioning properly.

[Michael Fabricant]

If Parliament is to be decanted, may I make a shameless bid for it to be decanted to Birmingham? [Interruption.] Why not? It is our second city. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the cost of doing the works over 10 years would be considerably higher than the cost of decanting and doing the work over two or three years?

[John Thurso]

On my hon. Friend’s suggestion about Birmingham, I cannot possibly comment. In regard to the costs, it is my experience from my past life that a decant and a quick contract are often preferable to a series of contracts with no decant, but that is a matter for the study, and we must be led by the evidence that is produced. We will follow that properly.