House of Lords Reform Bill

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

This Bill is concerned with the very heart of the constitutional settlement of this country. It is not just about the abolition of a 700-year-old institution; it is about the way in which a Government are formed and sustained, and about the primacy of the Commons—the elected House. To pretend that nothing in the relationship between this House and the other place will change should this Bill pass into law is folly, whether it be wilful or unwitting.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will not give way, because of time and the fact that many colleagues want to speak.

There are aspects of the House of Lords that should be reformed, but elections address none of them. On reform to improve the working of the scrutinising and revising Chamber, I am convinced that we in this House and those in the other place would come to a speedy consensus. There would be no opposition to the introduction of retirement procedures, to the reduction in the number of working peers, to the weakening of party patronage or to the forfeiture of the right to sit by peers who break the law. Such measures address the concerns of our time and could be enacted without affecting the constitutional settlement. There must be good reason to reject this path of consensus.

We are told that if we believe in democracy, we must support elections, that the laws of the land should be made by people elected by those who obey the laws of the land and that there is a democratic deficit in our polity because the upper House is not elected. That is disingenuous; there is no democratic deficit because the will of the elected House is unambiguously superior. The will of the people cannot be gainsaid. It is only through pretending that peers are law makers that one can confect a democratic deficit from the supremacy of the elected House. Of course, peers are not legislators; they are scrutinisers and revisers, and they accept that settled role in the constitution. However, it is absolutely true that those with the legitimacy of a democratic mandate will expect to be legislators. These new senators will not accept the limitations that are currently readily accepted in the other place.

The Bill would have the primacy of this House continue after reforms are made, but it does not explain why. Consent to taxation by the populace through its representatives in Parliament has been a thread that has endured through the near 800-year history of this institution. The House’s sole privilege of the purse has existed since the reign of Charles II. In the last century, the right of the Lords to frustrate the will of the Commons was denied it by the Parliament Acts and by the self-denying Salisbury doctrine.

When an elected upper House would have a mandate from the taxpayer why should it be denied a say in financial matters? On what legitimacy would the Parliament Acts rest if the House against which the Commons is imposing its will has been elected by the people? How can the Salisbury doctrine endure when the Deputy Prime Minister’s new senators will presumably be elected on party manifestos of their own? What will the Commons do but back down when an elected upper House opposes it with the support of the people? How can a Government endure when they cannot carry their legislation through the other place? In such circumstances, how can Governments continue to be formed solely on the basis of a majority in the House of Commons?

The Executive and the legislature derive their legitimacy from the same electoral mandate, which is why comparisons with the US are so bogus. Elections to a reformed upper House would weaken that essential relationship between the election of the Commons and the formation of a Government. Why is that not admitted? Why do the proposers of the Bill believe that they can hold back the natural forces of constitutional change with clause 2? That clause simply states that the Parliament Acts “will continue to apply”. No explanation is offered of their continued legitimacy. The clause would also repeal the preamble to the 1911 Act, because it is merely

“a short statement of the Government of the time”.

The preamble contains the seeds of the Act’s destruction, explaining that legislation would follow to create an elected upper House and to codify its powers, in essence nullifying the validity of the Parliament Act.

The Bill before us can seek to repeal a preamble, but it cannot repeal the self-evident truth: to change the Lords is to change the relationship between it and the Commons. The Bill labours under the delusion that nothing will change. In repealing the 1911 preamble, the Bill’s promoters admit that the powers of Governments are but transitory. The Government of today are soon the Government of yesterday and soon enough the Government of yesteryear. Constitutional reform is not an experiment; it can be undertaken only when there is just cause, not at the whim of whoever happen to be today’s politicians. The 1911 Act solved a constitutional crisis. There is no crisis now, but the Bill will surely create one.

Colleagues can vote on the principles of the Bill confident in the knowledge that the undertakings in the programme for government have been delivered. A commitment was made to whip both coalition parties to support the AV referendum, but there was no such commitment on Lords reform. Proposals have been made and it is now up to the advocates of those reforms to convince Members of this House that they are right. An unfettered debate will allow arguments on both sides to be made, and we can then vote on the principles of this momentous decision. I am glad that the programme motion will not be moved and the Government should comfort themselves with the fact that so many principled and sound constitutionalists sit on their Benches and stand ready to work on a Bill for Lords reform on which there is consensus.

The fact is that the progenitors of this Bill have tied a chain around one of the central pillars of our constitution and are pulling at it for all they are worth, cheerfully telling us as the marble begins to crack that its removal will not bring down the entire edifice. I will not be party to that; I will not support this Bill.

General matters

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I am going to speak about Portsmouth football club. I warn the House that there is some good news and some bad news. The good news is that fans have come together to set up a supporters trust. I declare an interest as a proud member of that trust: like so many others, I pay a £5 subscription, which goes towards funding community projects and, potentially, safeguarding the future of the club. I pay tribute to all who brought that about, in Portsmouth and at Supporters Direct.

Now for the bad news. It is often said by enthusiasts—although we in this House would disagree—that the mark of a good referee is that he goes unnoticed, letting the game run its course. Sadly for fans of Portsmouth, the financial referee has been too much in evidence in recent years. Yet again, Portsmouth has been let down by one of its owners. At about the time when we were debating the problems with the European arrest warrant, one such warrant was issued for the Russian owner of the club so that he could answer charges of money laundering in Lithuania. His company, Convers Sports Initiatives—or, rather appropriately, CSI—was placed in administration, and the hunt for another new owner is under way.

Fans and the club staff are right to feel disappointed after the extraordinary amount of work that has been put in by so many people over the last 18 months to avoid closure and rebuild the club. The sense of despair is all the more acute given that the “fit and proper person” test was supposed to weed out unsuitable owners. I am keen to hear the Minister’s views on the situation, and to be told what he can do to support the club in its latest challenge. Needless to say, I have a few suggestions.

I think that the Minister should be anxious for the vetting of prospective club owners to be done well, and I should like to hear his assessment of the process that led to CSI’s being allowed to buy Portsmouth. I was very pleased both by the report on football governance by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and by the Government’s response to it. The social value of the game is very much recognised in this place.

Those who invest in football clubs as a means of making money would do well to recognise that they have put their money not just into a vehicle for profit, but into the collective identity of communities—the bonds shared between generations of families. It is that simple enjoyment of the game and love of the club for its own sake that makes supporters clubs appropriate participants in club governance. Their sole interest is the club, and without them there would be no club. In my view, that is the most compelling argument for supporters trusts to have a governance role.

Like the Portsmouth supporters trust, I think that the option of supporter involvement via a financial stake should be considered for Portsmouth, and I am helping with the production of an assessment of the amount that could be raised. The professionalism with which the trust has conducted itself has been hugely impressive. The core working party is composed of knowledgeable and skilled individuals with the financial and legal expertise to develop this proposition. However, they have been faced with a series of improbable but all too real barriers. They do not yet have access to the financial information any prospective buyer would be entitled to see. There appears to be a bias against them—a suspicion that they are not serious, and an assumption they do not have the funds and that they are not competent. We will demonstrate, because we can, that all these prejudices are unfounded, but it should not be necessary to go to such lengths. I would be grateful if the Minister made it clear to the administrators that in taking such a stance they are not acting in anyone’s interests. Discrimination is not the better part of valour. The administrators should be left in no doubt that this House and the Government believe in supporter involvement and that the Portsmouth supporters trust should be both treated and judged on a level playing field.

I would be grateful if the Minister took an active interest in this latest episode of Portsmouth football club’s life, and for anything the Minister could do to support the trust and the fans in safeguarding their beloved club’s future.

Finally, I wish colleagues a happy Christmas.

Business of the House

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I think that that is more a matter for Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government or, if it is a delegated matter, for the Welsh Assembly. I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s concern to the attention of the relevant Minister, but we are anxious to devolve decisions and we believe that most of those decisions are best taken at local level rather than here in Whitehall.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

Now that this House has voted to bring an end to the racketeering that is clamping on private land, we should not lose sight of the fact that until April next year many, often vulnerable, people will still be caught out by unscrupulous firms. May we have a statement to set out what can be done for my constituents who have had tickets issued by City Watch for cars they do not own, when they were at home, or before they arrived in the car park, or who have been clamped while administering emergency first aid to a fellow patron? Perhaps most disgracefully, the vehicles of the elderly and disabled have been towed away and they have then been issued with four-figure fines.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She will know that the Protection of Freedoms Bill, which is currently in another place, bans the clamping of vehicles on private land. In the meantime, I applaud what she is doing to protect vulnerable people from the activities of clamping authorities. I commend all Members of Parliament to do what she has done and, where appropriate, if they cannot reach a resolution with the clamping company, to raise cases with the Security Industry Authority or the British Parking Association. She reminds the House of how important it is that that Bill should reach the statute book and that such abuses should not take place again.

Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation Bid for BSkyB

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

It is not often, I expect, that I shall sign a motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. On this particular occasion I thought it right to do so. I commend the Leader of the Opposition on his approach, which is that we must tackle these appalling matters on a cross-party basis. I have always tried to do that in the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which I am proud to chair, and I think that we have succeeded. I will merely say that I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition’s predecessor did not choose the same approach this afternoon.

I believe that the atmosphere at present has become so poisoned by the stream of appalling revelations that it would have been quite wrong for the News Corporation bid to acquire the whole of BSkyB to go ahead. We still do not know—we still have not even begun to know—the full extent of what has been going on in the newsroom at the News of the World, in the higher levels of News Corporation or, possibly, outside that, in other organisations, but clearly there were already question marks about the “fit and proper” test for News Corporation’s bid. The important thing is that we should obtain answers to questions very rapidly. There is an ongoing police inquiry, which needs to be concluded as fast as possible; there is the judicial inquiry that the Prime Minister has rightly set, which I fear will take much longer; and then there is my Select Committee, which has asked Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks to appear before it next Tuesday. We have not yet received a response. The Select Committee will meet tomorrow morning, and if we have not received a reply by then, we might well wish to return to the House to ask it to use the powers available to it to ensure that witnesses attend.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

There is an assumption that, once the News of the World ceases to trade, the victims of phone hacking will still have legal redress and that there will be a compensation fund for them. I doubt that that is the case, however. Is that something that the Committee could look at?

Business of the House (Thursday)

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

It would be very nice if that were the case, but I fear that on this occasion the amount of time that the Government want to allocate is in inverse proportion to the consensus. That is the difficulty that we have. The truth is that if the Government could get away with it, they would much prefer the House of Commons not to debate and discuss the proposal at all, so that they could try to get it through on the nod. I can think of no other change in student support that has been put before the House with so little scrutiny or debate.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I have to say that I find it deeply ironic that so many Members opposite are now raising concerns about the amount of time for debate. I remember that when I was president of Reading university students’ union and was raising concerns with the National Union of Students about the value for money of our affiliation fees, many Members opposite would set the fire alarms off.