Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Cash
On a point of order, Mr Evans. I do not know how the order of the amendments was decided, and I am sure that it was done in a proper and orderly manner, but I wish to place on record the fact that the threshold provisions are being driven further and further down the selection list, yet they are seminal to the referendum and whether it can be justified in the national interest.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
A statement was made by the Minister earlier about thresholds and I am sure that it will all become clear to the hon. Gentleman as he stays for the rest of this evening’s proceedings.
Mr Harper
I beg to move amendment 268, page 28, line 2, at end insert—
‘Modification of forms
9A (1) The Chief Counting Officer may, for the purpose of making a relevant form easier for voters to understand or use, specify modifications that are to be made to the wording or appearance of the form.
(2) In paragraph (1) “relevant form” means any of the following—
(a) Forms 3 to 11, 14 and 16 in Part 2 of this Schedule;
(b) the form of the notice set out in rule 16(7).
(3) In this Part of this Act a reference to a form is to be read as a reference to that form with any modifications specified under paragraph (1).
(4) Where a form is modified by virtue of paragraph (1), section 26(2) of the Welsh Language Act 1993 applies as if the modified form were specified by this Act.’.
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 274 to 278, 281 to 305, 308, 323 and 324.
Mr Harper
These amendments make several modifications for the purpose of adding clarity to the forms and statutory questions that a presiding officer may put to voters in certain specified circumstances in light of the recommendations of the Electoral Commission, Scope and electoral administrators. I referred to these amendments earlier, when we were debating the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael).
We recognise the important role that the chief counting officer has to play in the successful running of the poll so, at the request of the Electoral Commission, amendment 268 gives the chief counting officer power to amend the wording and appearance of voter-facing forms, except the ballot paper, for the purposes of making them easier to use or understand. This power will extend to forms 3 to 11, which are the form of postal voting statement, the declaration of identity, official poll cards and poll cards for postal or proxy voters; form 14, which is guidance for voters; and form 16, which is the form of declaration to be made by the companion of a voter with disabilities.
We have also made some other minor amendments to improve the clarity of the material seen by voters, including to the instructions on how to vote; to ensure that voters in devolved areas in particular are clear that the referendum relates only to the UK parliamentary system; and to ensure that the questions put to voters prior to being given a ballot paper are clear for areas in which more than one referendum may be taking place.
Following a recommendation from the Electoral Commission, we have sought to make the voting instructions clearer by stipulating that voters must vote in one box only. Amendments 287,291, 293 to 298, 303 and 308 effect this change at the relevant points in the Bill.
Amendments 282 and 283 give effect to the recommendations in the Electoral Commission’s guidance on prescribing voter materials to move that voting instruction to directly above the location of the boxes where electors will make their mark.
We have also tabled amendments to make it clear that the referendum provided for by this Bill relates to the electoral system for UK parliamentary elections, as opposed to electoral systems electing members to devolved legislatures. That issue came out of the research that the Electoral Commission did when it was looking at the question. Amendments 281, 284, 286, 289, 290, 304, 305, 323, and 324 achieve that objective.
We have also tabled amendments to make it clear that the referendum provided for by this Bill relates to the electoral system for UK parliamentary elections, as opposed to electoral systems electing members to devolved legislatures. That was an issue that came out of the research that the Electoral Commission did when it was looking at the question. Amendments 281, 284, 286, 289, 290, 304, 305, 323, and 324 achieve that objective.
Given that mayoral referendums might also be taking place on 5 May next year, we have introduced amendments to clarify the statutory questions that the presiding officer may put to voters requesting a ballot paper for the referendum for which the Bill provides. The amendments adapt those questions so that the presiding officer must specifically ask whether that voter has already voted in the referendum on the electoral system for UK parliamentary elections. Amendments 274 to 278 effect that change at the relevant points in the Bill.
Amendment 302 adds a title to guidance for voters to specify that the guidance to which the form refers relates to the referendum on the voting system for UK parliamentary elections. Amendments 285 and 288 give clarity to electoral administrators on where the official mark confirming the authenticity of the ballot paper may be placed on the form. It is important that no wording other than specified in the Bill appears on the front of the ballot paper. Any official marks that contain words, letters or numbers must therefore be printed on the back of the form, which will ensure that ballot papers are as simple and clear as possible for the voters to use.
Following advice from the chief counting officer in Northern Ireland, we have introduced amendments 299 to 301 to remove unnecessary forms from the Bill, as in practice separate poll cards are not sent to electors voting by post in that part of the United Kingdom.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 153, page 48, line 29, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 154, page 48, line 32, at end insert—
‘(4A) If the difference between the total number of votes cast in the referendum in the country in favour of the answer “Yes” and the total number of votes cast in the referendum in the country in favour of the answer “No” is fewer than 10,000 or 0.1 per cent. of the total number of votes cast, whichever is the smaller number, the Chief Counting Officer must give a direction to regional counting officers to have all the votes in their region re-counted.’.
Iain Stewart
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) and I have tabled the amendments to seek clarification from the Minister about the provisions for a recount at national level in the event of a tight overall result. Although I am satisfied with the provisions in the Bill for counting in each voting area, or for a recount in each voting area, just as there are provisions at a general election count for a recount in each constituency—[Interruption.]
The First Deputy Chairman
Order. Will the Committee please settle down? I am finding it very difficult to hear Mr Stewart.
Iain Stewart
Thank you, Mr Evans.
There are adequate provisions in the Bill for a recount mechanism at individual voting area level, just as at a general election count an agent or a candidate may call for a recount if the result is tight or there is some other doubt as to the accuracy of the count. However, if my reading of the Bill is correct, there is no such provision for a recount at national level and I am very concerned about that omission.
Counts in individual voting areas will be carried out in ignorance of what is happening in other counting areas. The Welsh devolution referendum of 1997 offers examples of where the problems may lie. Members may recall that the result of the referendum was very close. Of more than 1.1 million votes cast, the winning majority for the yes campaign was about 7,000 and there were approximately 4,000 spoilt ballot papers, so the result was on a knife edge.
It does not follow, however, that each area voted with the same margin of result; there were huge disparities between the counts in areas throughout Wales. In Rhondda, for example, which the shadow Minister may have some affection for and knowledge of, there was a large yes vote—a 15,000 majority for the yes campaign. Had that been at a general election, no candidate would have questioned it.
Mr Chope
Yes, it does. Under the motion of the House, schedules 3 and 4, clause 4, schedule 5, and clauses 5 and 6 were to be debated this evening before 11pm. We now know that there is no time for debate on any of those parts of the Bill. May I refer you, Mr Evans, to the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary when he addressed the House—
The First Deputy Chairman
Order. We are not starting a debate on this. I am required by the rules of the House to put each of the amendments formally, and that is exactly what I am going to do.
Schedule 3
Absent voting in the referendum
Amendments made: 173, page 76, line 14, leave out sub-paragraph (9).
Amendment 174, page 77, line 47, at end insert—
‘(9) The record kept under sub-paragraph (8) must be retained by the registration officer for the period of twelve months beginning with the date of the poll for the referendum.’.
Amendment 175, page 83, line 12, at end insert—
‘(11) The record kept under sub-paragraph (10) must be retained by the registration officer for the period of twelve months beginning with the date of the poll for referendum.’.
Amendment 176, page 83, line 28, leave out ‘(subject to any conditions prescribed by the relevant regulations)’.
Amendment 177, page 85, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (8).
Amendment 305, page 92, line 13, after ‘FOR’ insert ‘UNITED KINGDOM’.—(Mr Harper.)
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4
Application to the referendum of existing provisions
Amendments made: 178, page 93, line 28, leave out ‘(subject to sub-paragraph (4)(b))’.
Amendment 179, page 93, line 32, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) and (5).
Amendment 180, page 94, leave out lines 7 to 27.
Amendment 181, page 94, line 38, leave out ‘for “this Part” substitute’ and insert ‘after “this Part” insert’.
Amendment 182, page 100, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert—
‘In subsection (4), for the words after “whatever means” substitute— “and the reference to a forecast as to the result of the referendum includes a reference to a forecast as to the number or proportion of votes expected to be cast for each answer to the referendum question in any region, voting area or other area.”’. |
Amendment 183, page 100, line 17, leave out ‘1(5)’ and insert ‘1B’.
Amendment 306, page 100, line 24, leave out from beginning to the end of line 11 on page 101.
Amendment 307, page 101, line 31, leave out from ‘a’ to end of line 41 and insert
‘counting officer or Regional Counting Officer under paragraph 2A of Schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2010,’.
Amendment 308, page 104, line 9, leave out ‘once’ insert ‘in one box’.
Amendment 184, page 104, line 16, at end insert—
‘In subsection (7)— (a) for “returning officer at a parliamentary election or a local government election” substitute “counting officer”; (b) for “the election” substitute “the referendum”. | |
In subsection (9), for “returning officer” substitute “counting officer”.’. |
Amendment 185, page 104, line 29, at end insert—
‘1A (1) In relation to England and Wales, section 13B of the 1983 Act has effect for the purposes of the referendum as if a reference to an election to which that section applies included a reference to the referendum.
(2) In relation to Northern Ireland, section 13BA of the 1983 Act has effect for the purposes of the referendum as if—
(a) a reference to an election to which that section applies included a reference to the referendum,
(b) a reference to the final nomination day included a reference to the eleventh day before the date of the poll for the referendum,
(c) a reference in subsection (4) to an election included a reference to the referendum, and
(d) subsection (4)(b) referred also to the postal voters list or list of proxies kept for the referendum under paragraph 16(2) or (3) of Schedule 3.
(3) A reference in any enactment to section 13B or 13BA of the 1983 Act includes (where the context allows) a reference to that section as modified by this paragraph.
(4) Sub-paragraph (3) has effect, in relation to any register, until the first publication after the referendum of a revised version of the register under section 13 of the 1983 Act.
1B In sections 173 and 173A of the 1983 Act (which relate to incapacities where a person has been convicted of a corrupt or illegal practice) a reference to a person convicted of a corrupt or illegal practice includes a reference to a person convicted of such a practice under a provision of the 1983 Act applied by paragraph 1.’.
Amendment 309, page 104, leave out line 31 and insert—
‘Other acts
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
Section 6A(4) of the 2000 Act (meaning of “relevant counting officer”) applies for the purposes of the referendum as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) there were substituted “in accordance with paragraph 1A of Schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2010.”
Section 9C of the 2000 Act (provision of information about expenditure) applies for the purposes of the referendum as if for the words in subsection (2)(c) after “in connection with” there were substituted “the referendum under section 1 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2010.”
Section 128 of the 2000 Act (counting officers etc for referendums) applies for the purposes of the referendum as if—
(a) subsections (3), (4), (8) and (9)(b) were omitted;
(b) in subsection (5), for “the area for which he is appointed” there were substituted “the voting area for which he acts”;
(c) in subsection (9), for paragraph (a) there were substituted—
“(a) “voting area” has the meaning given by section 5(2) of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2010;”.
Electoral Administration Act 2006’.
Amendment 186, page 105, line 12, leave out ‘(subject to sub-paragraph (4)(c), (d), (e) and (g))’.
Amendment 187, page 105, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
Amendment 310, page 111, line 23, leave out ‘the relevant area’ and insert
‘any voting area or part of a voting area’.
Amendment 311, page 112, line 44, leave out ‘the relevant area’ and insert
‘any voting area or part of a voting area’.
Amendment 188, in schedule 4, page 113, leave out lines 12 to 24 and insert—
“‘(1) In this regulation “personal identifiers record” means a record kept by a registration officer in pursuance of— | ||
(a) paragraph 3(9) or 7(12) of Schedule 4 to the Representation of the People Act 2000 in relation to persons entitled to vote in the referendum, | ||
(b) paragraph 3(9) or 7(13) of Schedule 2 to the European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 2004 in relation to peers entitled to vote in the referendum, or | ||
(c) paragraph 4(8) or 8(10) of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2010.” | ||
In paragraph (3), for sub-paragraph (a) substitute— | ||
“(a) any agent attending proceedings on receipt of postal ballot papers, in accordance with regulation 85A(4) or 85B(3)(a).”’. |
Amendment 189, page 116, line 27, leave out ‘38’ and insert ‘39’.
Amendment 190, page 116, line 37, leave out ‘37(1)’ and insert ‘37(4)’.
Amendment 312, page 117, line 5, leave out from beginning to ‘appointed’ in line 7 and insert ‘relevant registration officer’.
Amendment 191, page 117, line 9, leave out ‘48’ and insert ‘49’.
Amendment 313, page 117, line 21, leave out from ‘paragraph’ to end of line 24 and insert
‘relevant registration officer’ has the meaning given by rule 49(3) of the referendum rules.’.
Amendment 314, page 118, column 2, leave out lines 38 to 41.
Amendment 315, page 119, line 3, leave out ‘the’ and insert ‘a’.
Amendment 316, page 119, line 4, leave out ‘the’ and insert ‘each relevant’.
Amendment 317, page 119, line 17, leave out ‘regulation “relevant’ and insert—
‘regulation— | ||
“relevant counting officer” in relation to a registration officer— | ||
(a) means a counting officer for a voting area that is the same as, or falls wholly or partly within, the registration officer’s registration area, but | ||
(b) does not include a counting officer who is the same individual as the registration officer. | ||
“relevant’. |
318, page 120, column 2, leave out lines 15 to 18.
Amendment 319, page 120, line 20, leave out ‘the’ and insert ‘a’.
Amendment 320, page 120, line 21, leave out ‘the’ and insert ‘each relevant’.
Amendment 321, page 120, line 34, leave out ‘regulation “relevant’ and insert—
‘regulation— | ||
“relevant counting officer” in relation to a registration officer— | ||
(c) means a counting officer for a voting area that is the same as, or falls wholly or partly within, the registration officer’s registration area, but | ||
(d) does not include a counting officer who is the same individual as the registration officer. | ||
“relevant’. |
Amendment 322, page 122, line 5, leave out ‘are to a registration officer mentioned in rule 49(1)(a)’ and insert
‘have the meaning given by rule 49(3)’.
Amendment 323, page 123, line 42, at end insert ‘UNITED KINGDOM’.
Amendment 192, page 124, line 17, leave out ‘(subject to sub-paragraph (4)(b))’.
Amendment 193, page 124, line 21, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
Amendment 194, in schedule 4, page 128, line 43, at end insert—
‘In paragraph (5), for “a particular election” substitute “the referendum”.’. |
Amendment 195, page 131, line 12, leave out ‘39(4)’ and insert ‘39(4)(b) and (5)’.
Amendment 324, page 132, line 34, at end insert ‘UNITED KINGDOM’.—(Mr Harper.)
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4
Control of loans etc to permitted participants
Amendments made: 158, page 3, line 13, after ‘5(2)’ insert ‘or (6) or 6(3)’.
Amendment 159, page 3, line 16, after ‘5(2)’ insert ‘or (6)’.
Amendment 160, page 3, line 29, leave out ‘if for’ and insert ‘if—
(a) paragraph (d) of paragraph 2(1) were omitted, together with paragraph 2(3)(a), the words “the loan or” in paragraphs 2(3) and 5(4)(a), the words “(d) or” in paragraph 5(4), and paragraph 5(4)(a)(i);
(b) for’.—(Mr Harper.)
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5
Control of loans etc to permitted participants
Amendments made: 196, page 136, line 38, leave out ‘or the responsible person’.
Amendment 197, page 136, line 44, leave out ‘or the responsible person’.—(Mr Harper.)
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5
Interpretations
Amendments made: 325, page 4, line 4, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
‘has the meaning given by paragraph 1A of Schedule 1;’.
Amendment 161, page 4, line 8, at end insert—
‘“enactment” includes—
(a) any provision of an Act,
(b) any provision of, or of any instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(c) any provision of, or of any instrument made under, Northern Ireland legislation, and
(d) any provision of subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978);’.
Amendment 326, page 4, leave out lines 19 to 22 and insert—
‘(2) Each of the following, as it exists on the day of the referendum, is a “voting area” for the purposes of this Part—
(a) a district in England for which there is a district council;
(b) a county in England in which there are no districts with councils;
(c) a London borough;
(d) the City of London (including the Inner and Middle Temples);
(e) the Isles of Scilly;
(f) a constituency for the National Assembly for Wales;
(g) a constituency for the Scottish Parliament;
(h) Northern Ireland.’.—(Mr Harper.)
Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Evans. On clause 6, the Minister indicated to the Committee earlier that he intends to adopt amendment 3, which stands in my name, as a Government amendment, so that it can be voted upon at this stage in the proceedings. I have made no objection to the Minister’s suggestion, because it is the Government’s right to have a vote if they so wish, and I have every confidence that, in whatever circumstances, the Government would win the vote on that amendment and the other amendments in the group. I have no objection to there being a vote. However, the Committee must take note that it is not the vote that matters, but the fact that seven amendments have not been discussed. My purpose in tabling amendment 3 was not to win a vote or to change the Government’s mind, but to ensure that the Committee had an opportunity to discuss the very important issue of thresholds in the forthcoming referendum.
The First Deputy Chairman
Order. I intend to call Mr Chope, Mr Bryant and the Minister, and then that is it, and we will have fully exhausted the point of order.
Mr Chope
Further to that point of order, Mr Evans. In discussing the programme motion on 12 October, the Parliamentary Secretary said that
“we have taken steps…in the programme motion”
to ensure that
“the House will be able to debate and vote on the key issues raised by the Bill.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 183.]
On Second Reading he also made it quite clear that we would have the opportunity to debate and vote on the key issues. Nobody is suggesting that the threshold is anything other than a key issue in the Bill. Even at this late stage, it is open to the Minister to tell the Committee that he will come forward tomorrow with an amendment to the programme order to ensure that we can start the business tomorrow with a debate on clause 6, rather than closing down debate on that clause, which seems to be the Government’s intent. I should also point out that unless we have a debate, it will not be possible for the Committee to take a view on the relative merits of amendment 3 as compared with my amendments 64, 65 and 66. In the European debate the other night the Chair was able to decide which amendments were more worthy of being put to the vote on the basis of the debate. Without a debate, we will not be able to do that.
Mr Harper
Further to that point of order, Mr Evans. If the hon. Member for Rhondda genuinely thought that this was the most important part of the Bill, he should have thought about that when he moved some of his less important amendments today. That was a time-wasting exercise and nothing else.
I gave a clear commitment on Second Reading that the Government would do everything within their power to ensure that we had a debate and a vote on all the key issues of the Bill. We provided extra time in the programme motion last week. Reaching a point in the debate, of course, requires Members to exercise some discipline, which they were incapable of doing today. What is left within my power is to propose amendment 3 to enable the Committee to vote on it, but I ask my colleagues to vote against it. I want to facilitate the opportunity for this Committee to vote.
The First Deputy Chairman
I have listened carefully to the several points of order that Members have made. What the Government propose is orderly under Standing Order No. 83D(2), although it is, as some hon. Members have observed, somewhat unusual. I am sure that hon. Members will also have noted the opportunities open to them, as has been remarked, on Report. I should just remind Members of the rule on voice and vote. It is possible to vote against one’s own amendment, but one cannot shout “Aye” and then vote “No”. We now move on to clause 6.
Clause 6
Commencement or repeal of amending provisions
Amendment proposed: 3, page 4, line 28, after ‘“No”’, insert
‘and the number of electors casting a vote in the referendum is equal to or greater than fifty per cent. of those entitled to cast such a vote,’.—(Mr Harper.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Question negatived.
The First Deputy Chairman
Order. It is getting very late and I suspect that Members will now wish to see the conclusion of our proceedings.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair (Programme Order, 12 October).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.
Superannuation Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Is the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) giving way?
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Jeremy Wright)
No, don’t! She is being discourteous.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 155, page 1, leave out line 6 and insert—
‘(2) (a) The Electoral Commission shall within two months of Royal Assent to this Act specify the date on which the referendum is to be held.
(b) The specified date must be—
(i) within 18 months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, and
(ii) a date on which no other election to a parliament or assembly in the United Kingdom is to be held.
(c) The Minister must lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council to give effect to the specified date.
(d) The draft of the Order in Council under paragraph (c) above shall not be laid before Parliament until the specified date has been agreed by the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales.’.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, page 1, line 6, leave out
‘must be held on 5 May 2011’
and insert—
‘shall be held on a date specified in an order made by the Minister, provided that such date—
(a) shall not coincide with any poll or polls held for any parliamentary assembly or regularly held local government election; and
(b) shall be at least six months after the commencement of the referendum period (as specified in Schedule 1).’.
Amendment 126, page 1, line 6, leave out ‘on 5 May 2011’ and insert
‘within 18 months of Royal Assent on a date that shall not coincide with any poll or polls for any parliamentary assembly or regularly held local government elections, to be specified by order subject to the approval of both Houses and following a consultation undertaken by the Electoral Commission.’.
Amendment 1, page 1, line 6, leave out ‘5 May 2011’ and insert ‘8 September 2011’.
Amendment 124, page 1, line 6, leave out ‘5 May’ and insert ‘2 June’.
Amendment 225, page 1, line 6, leave out ‘5 May 2011’ and insert
‘the day of the next general election’.
Amendment 5, in schedule 1, page 14, line 7, leave out
‘day on which this Act is passed’
and insert ‘relevant date’.
Amendment 6, page 14, line 8, at end insert—
‘1A (1) For the purposes of paragraph 1(a) above the “relevant date” is a date specified in an order made by the Minister, after consultation to be held after Royal Assent to this Act with the Electoral Commission as to an appropriate period for the fair conduct of the referendum.
(2) If in the opinion of the Electoral Commission the date on which Royal Assent is given to this Act would mean that there would be an insufficient period for the fair conduct of the referendum if it were held on the date otherwise required by section 1, the Minister may by order specify such later date on which the referendum shall be held as the Electoral Commission shall approve.’.
Mr MacNeil
I am glad that I may speak to our amendment on the date of the referendum on the voting system.
The current proposed date makes the referendum a squatter in another’s house, perhaps even a parasite. It is quite unbelievable that, of all possible days, one has been chosen that means the concerns of parts of the current UK are completely overlooked and disregarded. It is almost as though the Bill were intended to find opponents, and it has been successful in that end. It has created a coalition of opponents.
The handling of the referendum’s timing has been at best insensitive and insulting and at worst high-handed and cack-handed. In Scotland, we have already moved our council elections by a year so that they do not interfere with the parliamentary elections and vice versa. We have shown respect for others and each other. I have heard about the respect agenda, and I am now seeing its substance. I have also heard about the Liberal-Tory big society, and I wonder whether that is as vacuous, but that is another debate.
The fact that the Electoral Commission has sent guidance to Scotland’s 32 local authorities informing them that the referendum will be “the senior poll” is bad news for all of us who respect what happens in the Scottish Parliament. The counting of ballots for the Scottish Parliament will come second, which could delay some Scottish parliamentarians’ results until the next day, or perhaps even later given Scottish geography or, as I can testify from the experience of the 2007 election, weather. The same could apply in Northern Ireland. Wales has already seen the problem coming and moved its elections, because there are to be two referendums, a council election and an Assembly election in 2011.
For all parties in Scotland, the question is why Scottish issues should be put on the back burner for a referendum for which there appears to be little real public appetite. There has been surprisingly honest input on that question—hostile, some might call it, although we might call it sensible. There has been sensible input from Jim Tolson, who happens to be the Liberal Democrat MSP for Dunfermline West. He has supported us, saying that he is very much against having a referendum on the same day as the Scottish election. Oh that the Liberal Democrats south of the border could show the same sense.
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I understand that “Erskine May” states that, but how much detail has just been given is open to debate. I call Mr Clegg.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that I have merely referred in passing to a court case, which, as I said, confirms that courts will not involve themselves in internal parliamentary proceedings.
The Bill explicitly confirms that the Speaker’s certificate
“is conclusive for all purposes.”
So the decision is for the Speaker, not the courts or the Executive.
Superannuation Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. A considerable number of Members are trying to catch my eye, as the House can see. If speeches go much beyond eight minutes, we will not get everybody in, so I ask Members to focus and show discipline in order to help other Members to be able to deliver their speeches also.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow said several times that we are all in this together. We are all in this debate together, and if everybody takes about 20 minutes, we will get fewer than 10 Members in, so please be focused. We have not introduced a time limit on this debate, but if it carries on like this, I will have no hesitation in doing so.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debate on the Address
Nigel Evans Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Redwood
Those periods were also periods of surging income tax receipts, which demonstrates that this is good for enterprise, profits and jobs. We need more profits, more savings, more investment and more jobs. If we tax things more lightly, we get more of them. If we tax them more heavily, we get less of them. The enthusiasts for high taxes in this House have always said, “We must put up the taxes on petrol to stop people driving so much, and we must put up the taxes on smoking to stop people smoking so much.” So, presumably, putting up the taxes on enterprise will stop people being so enterprising. That must be the logic.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
I am enjoying my right hon. Friend’s contribution. Did not Margaret Thatcher prove this point when she was Prime Minister? By reducing the level of tax on the top earners, she increased the amount of money that flew into the Exchequer.
Mr Redwood
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of the great lady; she was a great Prime Minister. I not sure, however, that that is quite the model we need to persuade those on the Front Bench of a coalition Government. That is why I am drawing on more modern and foreign examples. My right hon. and hon. Friends will understand that we need good friends, because we must win this argument for the sake of our country’s prosperity.
I know a number of people whom I describe as entrepreneurs on strike. They have been very successful in business and they are now in their late 40s and 50s. Many of us would feel that they were still quite young—[Interruption.] They are also very energetic, as some of us are. They are on strike at the moment, however. They have loads of money in the bank or in a portfolio, but they do not want to commit it to a new business in Britain because they find the atmosphere here too hostile. They think that there are too many regulations and controls, which they find too burdensome. They also find the tax structure too uncertain. They feel that, if they are going to venture their money and work 12 to 14 hours a day to break in a new company and make it a success, they do not want to be paying 40 to 50% tax after five years if the company is working. They know that the Treasury will not be sending them half their losses if the business has not worked, and they feel that it is easier not to bother. They are saying, “I’ve got enough money, I can live quite comfortably, and I’m on strike.” Hon. Members might dislike strikes, as I do, but we have to work alongside them and with those entrepreneurs. This proves the point that if we want to stop something, we tax it. Please, Government, do not stop enterprise, venturing and new developments.
That brings me to my final main point, colleagues will be pleased to know. It relates to an excellent Bill proposed in the Queen’s Speech, which has been championed by my new friend, the Deputy Prime Minister: the great repeal Bill. I was delighted to learn that this was a Liberal Democrat idea. I cannot remember how many times I have urged that this House introduce a great repeal Bill, but Liberal Democrat ideas are not always wrong and I am delighted to give them ownership of this one, as long as they will do one thing for me. That is that they should work with us to make it a really good repeal Bill.
There are many things that we need to repeal. I shall not go on about them at huge length, because other colleagues wish to speak. I have sent the Deputy Prime Minister 27 proposals for the great repeal Bill, and they are also on that well-known website, johnredwood.com—I hope that I am permitted a commercial in this hallowed Chamber. If colleagues think it a good idea, they too should write to the Deputy Prime Minister with their pet ideas for the great repeal Bill. We do not want Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box with half a dozen perfectly good ideas, and then to say, “Well, we had a consultation, but nobody had anything else that they wanted knocked out.” I am sure that colleagues have their own ideas, and they should please put them in. If they do not, I do not mind them borrowing all the ones from my website. I do not expect any praise or attribution. They can even put in their letters that they do not like me, or perhaps that they agree with me. They can put in whatever they wish, if they think that it will help to get their message across. We need to bombard the Government with as many ideas as possible while they are listening and trying to construct the great repeal Bill.
We need to get costs off the back of British business. It is not easy to cut taxes as much as I would like—because the Government will not believe all my good news on how that would raise revenues—so we need also to cut the regulatory costs on business, so that more people can be persuaded that it is worth while to work. Our country is disfigured by 6 million people of working age who do not have a job. Some of them are chronically disabled and very ill; we all wish them any speedy recovery they can get and we wish to send them as much money as we can so that they can have a reasonably comfortable life. Most of the 6 million are not in that category, however, so it must be a high priority for this Government to use whatever means they can to get them back to work, which requires a strong and vibrant private sector for them to find jobs on offer. That is the central task.
If this Parliament masters the deficit before it demolishes us, if this Parliament gives hope to 6 million people out of work and if this Parliament creates an enterprising and fast-growing private sector economy, it will deserve to be well rewarded by the electorate in five years’ time or whenever the end comes.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). He was elected on the very same day I was elected to this place and I think that he is sitting in almost the same place from which he delivered his maiden speech; I am certainly sitting in the same place as when I first arrived here in 1987. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has not delivered the same speech that he gave on the earlier occasion. He referred to johnredwood.com, and we are all going to go out there and log on. When we were first elected, computers were not even around, so this marks a big advance for us.
Mr Speaker, you reprimanded Members who congratulated you on the previous occasion you were elected Speaker, but I want to join others in congratulating you on your re-election. In the months you have been Speaker, you have not only shown your command in this House, but you have gained the enormous respect that we all have for you and your work—hence your re-election without anyone against you. Congratulations.
I would also like to congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) on making his first speech as leader of the Democratic Unionist party. We were at the same university but not at the same time, so I do not know what his reputation was, but I know that he will lead his party with great distinction. In debates in which I have participated with him, he has certainly shown an independent state of mind—not always supporting the Government and not always supporting the Opposition. Sitting next to him, of course, is the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). When I first sat in my place here 23 years ago, I was sitting near his father. One tends to wonder whether one has sat here for too long when the sons get elected to replace their fathers.
What has been impressive about this election is the way in which the House of Commons has changed. When I was first elected, there were four Members from the ethnic minority communities representing the Labour party. As I look across the Chamber, I see one that has become more representative of the country, which I think is a tribute to the work of all the parties and, indeed, of Parliament, in trying to ensure that we get more women and ethnic minority people elected to the British Parliament. I am sure that they will all make their contributions in their own way, representing all their constituents to the best of their ability. I want to congratulate all new Members on their election.
It would be churlish to speak in the debate on the Loyal Address without congratulating Ministers. I know that they have not all rushed in to hear my speech, but I am sure that those present on the Treasury Bench will pass on our good wishes about the election of those Ministers.
This is, of course, an important time in British politics. We have never had a coalition Government while I have been a Member of Parliament; indeed, as we were reminded by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), there has not been one for 70 years. However, I think that right hon. and hon. Members opposite should stop apologising for, or explaining, the coalition. The right hon. Member for Wokingham kept explaining why it was necessary, but the fact is that no party had an absolute majority in the House of Commons, and if we want stable government, we must have a coalition.
We will of course do our best to support coalition policies when they are in the best interests of the country, but when we feel that they are wrong, we will challenge them. As the Leader of the Opposition said today, that would be done by any good and effective Opposition. I think that we should put the explanations to one side, and that the coalition should get on with being the coalition, governing the country and putting before the House proposals that we will scrutinise.
I know that many other Members wish to take part in this debate so I shall raise just four issues, the first of which concerns home affairs. I had the privilege of chairing the Home Affairs Committee for three years during the last Parliament and I found it interesting that the Government adopted a number of the Committee’s recommendations at the very end of the Session, including the creation of a national security council. We proposed that the various strands advising Ministers on national security should be combined in a single body—not quite the “situation room” of “The West Wing”, but a body that the Prime Minister could consult in order to obtain effective and important advice about the security of the nation. I am pleased that the Government accepted those recommendations.
I am also pleased that the Home Secretary has decided to review the case of Gary McKinnon. I see that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) is sitting in his place—or, rather, not in his place, which was formerly on this side of the House, but almost directly opposite it. I pay tribute to him for the amazing work that he did on behalf of his constituent. I believe that the fact that Gary McKinnon is still here is due to the hon. Gentleman’s work as a constituency Member, which should serve as a model for any Member who might take up an issue of this kind. He was able to bring the attention of the House and the country to Gary McKinnon’s plight.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Select Committee resolved unanimously that Gary McKinnon should not be extradited to the United States of America, but should be tried in this country. Although we heard some comments from members of the Government this morning about the progress of the review, I am happy to leave it to the Home Secretary to examine the evidence that we urged the former Home Secretary to examine, and to arrive at the right conclusion: that Gary McKinnon should be allowed to stay and face trial in this country. That is the right thing for him to do if the prosecuting authorities believe that he should do it.
The Government have accepted other proposals in our reports, including our very last report, which dealt with the detention of children in immigration cases. We felt that that was wrong, and I am glad that the Government have accepted our view.
Now for the bad news, however. I think that we have some problems with the Government’s policing proposals. Of course it is up to any Government taking office to decide their priorities, but I would recommend caution over policing budgets. I know that it was suggested in the statement made yesterday by the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that £376 million could be found from the home affairs budget specifically for policing matters, but I do not believe that many police authorities in the country are wasting money on front-line policing.
I think that this will be an issue for every single Member of the House. As the cuts proceed and the bills are sent to local police authorities, we will see the impact on local policing. It has always been true that we should protect front-line services. Of course the invention of police community support officers has been extremely important, because they provide back-up for front-line officers, and of course it is possible to make savings on administration and red tape. That was another of the Select Committee’s recommendations.
In our report “Policing in the 21st century”, we spoke of the need to use good practice and to share it around the country. For example, Staffordshire has reduced the number of forms to be filled in from 24 to one. As a result, more police time has been released. Another of our recommendations, which the previous Government had started to implement, was that every single police officer should have a hand-held computer, an effective way of dealing with crime at the scene of a crime. If that new technology is to be put at risk because of the proposals to cut police budgets, we ought to be concerned; not necessarily in a party-political way, but in a way that is above party politics. At the end of the day, what our constituents want and need more than anything else is the ability to pick up a phone when a crime has been committed and to ensure that a police officer comes as soon as possible so that they are able to report the crime.
Mr Nigel Evans
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that what constituents want—they certainly said this to me during the election—is more police officers on the beat and fewer in police stations drowning in bureaucracy?
Keith Vaz
The hon. Gentleman has made this point before. As a small business man, he was concerned about policing in his constituency. It is also, of course, natural constituency work. People want visibility and if they do not see a police officer, they get worried. When we consider police budgets and re-organisation, we must make sure that we protect those front-line services.
We also ought to be very careful about electing commissioners and chief constables. I am all in favour of a review of the police committees. Most police committees are not absolutely accountable to local people, most of whom do not know who sits on their police committees. Similarly, very few people know who the executive directors of primary care trusts are, despite the fact that they dispense a huge amount of NHS money locally. I am all for more accountability and am happy to look at proposals that would allow certain numbers of people to be elected on to police committees, but we should not take away the operational responsibilities of police officers and the priorities of local policing from police officers and place them in the hands of people who do not necessarily have the experience to do their work.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
I intend to be brief—newly elected Members will learn that that is not the biggest fib they will hear in the House.
It is always a delight to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg). She said that she did not experience much difference in going into opposition from sitting on the Government side. It is a little like the man who said, “I tried rich and I tried poor, and on the whole, I prefer rich.” I have tried Government and Opposition and I can tell her that, on the whole, I prefer Government because at least we can start to do things. That is what today is all about—the Queen’s Speech has given us an action plan.
The hon. Lady was rightly very gracious about my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington). He spoke eloquently, passionately and without notes about his constituency. I congratulate him on his excellent contribution—I know that he has already received fan mail from the Front Bench. I am sure that he will go far in the House.
I am grateful to the people of Ribble Valley for sending me back to this place. I, too, had Liberal Democrats—my new allies—distributing leaflets in my constituency during the election campaign, pointing out that only the Liberal Democrat could beat the Conservative there. They went from second to third place, so I am equally grateful to the electors of Ribble Valley for that.
The sad loss towards the end of the previous Parliament of David Taylor and Ashok Kumar has been mentioned many times today. Both were decent men and good parliamentarians, and the House will miss them greatly.
On the day of the election, it became clear that there were problems in some polling stations—it happened in Ribble Valley five years ago—where people were turned away at 10 o’clock and not allowed to vote. Clearly, that should not be allowed to happen in future. I hope that the powers that be will reconsider not only the voting system but the process of voting so that people who join a queue to vote can cast their vote in some way, shape or form.
The postal voting system is far too lax, even now, despite the problems at the previous election. I still believe that people should have a good reason for casting a postal vote. As a member of the Council of Europe, I have observed elections throughout Europe. One thing we are told to look out for and prevent is family voting so that no pressure is put on members of a family. That is all well and good, but if entire families have postal votes, no regard is paid to that sort of voting. I am sure that family voting takes place in some cases. I therefore hope that we can reconsider postal voting.
I also hope that we can consider allowing early voting—perhaps five days before a general election—so that people can turn up at council headquarters with proof of identity and cast their vote early instead of having to wait for the day, particularly given the absurd delay between registering to vote and voting. I think that the deadline for registering for proxy and postal votes was 20 April. Many people did not know then that they would be away on 6 May for all sorts of work-related reasons and it would be better if the date could be extended or early voting were permitted.
I was delighted with the Queen’s Speech—the first one with which I have been delighted for 13 years. The economy is at its heart. The hon. Lady mentioned her bankrupt council, but we have a bankrupt country, and that needs to be sorted out. Spending cannot continue at its current level. We must be more effective with the huge amount of taxpayers’ money that we spend and ensure that we protect the front-line services on which people want their money to be spent. That will be a challenge for our new coalition.
Broadband has been mentioned. The Government want high-speed broadband internet connection to be made available. I represent a rural constituency and I want to ensure that the Government do not forget rural areas. When they roll out high-speed broadband, it must be made available to everybody. We do not want a digital deficit in rural areas, where access to high-speed broadband will boost employment.
The Queen’s Speech also refers to limiting the number of non-European Union economic migrants entering the UK. I fully support that. After the economy, controlling the number of people who come to the UK was the No. 1 issue mentioned to me on the doorstep. We are a small island. We should use the benefits of being an island, but we also need to limit greatly the number of people who can come to this country.
The Queen’s Speech also mentions the health service. We will ensure that patients have a voice and strengthen the role of doctors in the NHS. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) is sitting in his rightful place on the Front Bench. Clitheroe community hospital is close to my heart. It is superb and loved by everybody. We were promised a new hospital, which was delayed, even though the building programme started. If the voice of patients is to mean anything, I hope that the voices of the patients at Clitheroe will ensure that the new hospital is delivered for the people of Ribble Valley.
A Bill will be introduced to provide for a referendum on the alternative vote system. I had more than 50% of the vote, but I will campaign actively against the introduction of any form of proportional representation in this country. We currently have an aberration and we are making the best of it. However, I do not want that to become the norm. I want stable government and we can ensure that by not moving to some form of proportional representation. I will therefore campaign strongly on the streets of Ribble Valley in the referendum.
I served on the Select Committee on International Development for more than a year and I saw at first hand the excellent work that the Department for International Development and British taxpayers do throughout the world. The former Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), is in his place. I have seen what the power of British taxpayers’ support can achieve in, for example, water projects and providing medicines for those who suffer from HIV and AIDS. I have seen the new lease of life that people can be given. When one stares into the faces of people to whom the money has made a genuine difference, one feels proud. During the general election campaign, it was great to listen to people on the doorstep who said that they wanted us to carry on supporting such projects throughout the world. We talk about poverty in this country, but it is nothing compared with the abject poverty in which too many people live—on less than $2 a day, in miserable conditions and with no hope. I am delighted that all the major political parties in the general election campaign spoke of raising the amount of money in the international development budget to 0.7% of GDP. I am even more delighted that my Government will fulfil that promise.
I said that I would be brief, and I have been. The most interesting part of any Queen’s Speech is:
“Other measures will be laid before you.”
We look forward to those along with all the others that the Queen mentioned in her Gracious Speech today.