Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right: people do want us to get on with the other issues, particularly at a time when we need the economy to grow, we need to provide more jobs, and we have got to get to grips with problems with the cost of living. They want to see reforms in welfare and immigration. Yes, they want us to deal with this issue, but they want us to keep a perspective and a balance, and get on with many of the issues that this country needs to deal with.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister is absolutely right to say that we need an all-party response to get to the bottom of the issues. Will he therefore ensure that all the minority parties—all the parties in the House—are consulted about the ongoing inquiries, not just the Labour Opposition? Will he take very seriously the responses from the devolved Administrations about the current inquiry?

[The Prime Minister]

We did consult the devolved Administrations about the terms of reference and about the inquiry. A number of points were made; it was not possible to include all of them, because sometimes they clashed with points made by other consultees, including the official Opposition. We tried to get the balance right, but I think anyone looking at the terms of reference will see that they cover all the ground and actually set out an extremely comprehensive and effective inquiry.

Review of Parliamentary Standards Act 2009

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I want to paint a picture of two different parliamentary expenses schemes. One is bureaucratic, difficult to understand and administer, expensive to run and universally loathed by those whom it seeks to serve. The other is relatively inexpensive, easy to understand and universally accepted by those whom it seeks to serve. It might surprise some to know that both those schemes currently exist in the UK. The first is our good friend IPSA, and the second is the scheme that operates in Scotland without fuss, issues or any difficulty whatever.

A year on from IPSA’s creation, we are here again discussing its many and manifest failures, while the system in Scotland works without any issues or difficulty. No one cares to hear about it, and even the press are bored with it. They lost interest in the tea and biscuits stories years ago and they have gone on to other things, but it was not always like that in Scotland. In the early days of the Scottish Parliament there were a number of alarming stories, but nothing on the scale of what happened in this House. Initially, the Scottish Parliament more or less copied in full the parliamentary scheme from this place, but then there were difficulties, so it patiently, constructively and conscientiously fashioned a new system, which has worked. That system has the support of MSPs and the public, who know it is fair and transparent, and the press no longer have any particular interest in it.

One way of illustrating the difference between the two systems is by looking at them through the eyes of the staff who have the misery of dealing with them on our behalf. I share an office with a Member of the Scottish Parliament. We share staff and our office manager looks after our office issues for us jointly, so she is responsible for paying all the bills and making sure that all the offices work effectively. When she does the expenses work for the MSP, it is over in minutes: the direct debit for office supplies—done; a few receipts for the travel required—finished. But then we almost hear her groan of anguish when it is time to turn to the MP’s expenses. With a heavy heart, she draws down the IPSA website again and the hours of misery start. Is it the four hours to be spent on the travel reconciliations for last month, or the trying to sit through the quadruplicate reconciliation that IPSA requires for travel that causes the misery? Is it the endless phone calls to IPSA Towers, trying to understand and decipher the new, panicky rewrite of some of the rules? Or is it the stress of possibly getting a claim wrong—of something going into the wrong column or category and the claim being returned or, worse, refused and opened up for the ritual press humiliation that comes when those expenses are published every two months?

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that having an IPSA-type body is a good thing for MPs, but that it is so over-bureaucratic that it stifles what we are here to do? Speaking from personal experience, I think that if it were not for Philip from IPSA having come around and helped out many of the Members who are present today, we would all be in a world of pain.

[Pete Wishart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which gives me the opportunity to say that there is nothing wrong with the staff who work for IPSA, most of whom are courteous and very helpful. They do all they can to try to resolve some of the difficulties and issues that confront us and our staff day in, day out. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the problem is the mind-numbing bureaucracy of the thing. I do not want my staff sitting there on the phone to IPSA Towers. I do not want them wading through the quadruplicate reconciliations that are required. I want them to work to help my constituents; that is what they are there to do. Why are they wasting their precious time, which should be spent on my constituents, on that mind-numbing useless bureaucracy? It is time that we addressed that question properly.

The Scottish system and IPSA have one thing in common—one that we all want to see: transparency. That is what it should be about; transparency is the key to the way forward. The system used by the Scottish Parliament is even better, because receipts are put on each MSP’s website and are available at the click of a mouse, so we achieve transparency without the massive difficulties caused by the bureaucracy of filling in all those forms.

IPSA has had a chance to try to resolve those issues. Unfortunately, I missed the debate secured by the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) before Christmas. I do not think that I have yet congratulated him on securing this debate, and on his diligence in pursuing the issue. After the first debate, IPSA was charged with the task of getting some of those difficulties in order. There have been some improvements, which we are all prepared to welcome, but the culture and the institution are still very much in place. There has not been a cultural shift in the way in which IPSA deals with MPs’ expenses, so we are right to try to pursue the issue along the lines that the hon. Gentleman was prepared to suggest. Let us see if we can look at the 2009 Act again to try to get something different.

We do not need to look too far afield, although I would be fascinated to learn about other international examples. We need look only 500 miles up the road to find a system that functions perfectly well, supported by those whom it serves and by the public, and without any issue or interest from the press whatsoever. We do not need to reinvent the wheel; we just need to strap a Caledonian one on to the House and get on with it. That is what we should do now, as we have an opportunity to try to resolve this. When the issue of expenses came before the House a couple of years ago, we strongly suggested that people should take a look at the Scottish system. That proposal was rejected in favour of IPSA, and the House probably realises that it made a dramatic and drastic mistake in going down that route—but there is still time to try to achieve a change. Let us not do something radically different. Let us just do something that works, and something works just up the road.

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

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I should like to return to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), having perhaps given the Minister slightly more time to reflect on the genuinely valid points that my hon. Friend raised. I know that colleagues from other parties were also nodding in agreement when he was raising them.

The returning officers in Scotland are up to the same trick that they were trying to pull before the 2010 general election, when the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) gave a clear instruction to the returning officers that they could not delay the start of the count for that general election in Scotland until the following day.

Let me place the Minister under notice that I shall seek two guarantees from him and the Deputy Leader of the House. The first is that he speaks urgently to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—I suspect he will have a number of opportunities to speak to them in the Division Lobbies in the next four hours—to get them to set the record straight on the Scotland Office position on the counting. Will the Minister also guarantee—I will take him at his word, as he is an honourable Gentleman—that either he or the Secretary of State will write to the returning officers in Scotland to remind them that they receive a payment for carrying out these duties?

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Does not the hon. Gentleman share my absolute and utter surprise that neither the Secretary of State for Scotland nor the Under-Secretary have yet written to returning officers to get this issue clarified and resolved?

[Thomas Docherty]

I fear that in some ways I am not surprised, because we have learned over the last nine months that the Secretary of State for Scotland is like Macavity the cat. When it comes to any issue—whether it be the coastguard, defence or anything else—he is posted absent. The hon. Gentleman’s point is valid because the Secretary of State should be writing to returning officers to remind them that they receive an additional payment for carrying out their duties in unsociable hours, so there is no reason for the count not to happen. If the returning officers insist on delaying until the following morning, will the Minister guarantee that those payments will be withdrawn from them and their staff? Why should we pay them for a service that they are not carrying out? Will he also confirm that he will write to returning officers to remind them that, during our Wednesday evening debate on the Standing Order at the end of last year and during the course of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, he gave an explicit guarantee on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government that the count would take place as soon as practically possible—namely, straight after the polls close in Scotland?

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards]

I can answer the hon. Gentleman’s point simply: hardly any.

Returning to the point about candidates, I am confident that my party will have no difficulty in finding quality candidates the length and breadth of Wales, although it might be a different matter, of course, for smaller parties, such as the Liberal Democrats. However, ensuring quality coverage, so that the electorate can become familiar with the people, and not only the party, for whom they are voting, will be doubly difficult if they are all fighting for air time.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is looking forward, like I am, with great anticipation to finding out how the Minister will reply to this debate. On Second Reading, the Deputy Prime Minister said that he was minded to move the date of the election. Is my hon. Friend aware of any Government amendments dealing with this matter, or is this yet another Liberal broken promise?

[Jonathan Edwards]

My hon. Friend makes an important contribution. Obviously, if there had been changes since Second Reading, I would not have had to make this speech or table these amendments.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I made it clear earlier that my preference is for four years and, as the hon. Member for Rhondda has said, the norm has been three years and eight months. Why go to five years, therefore, if the norm over the past 200 years has been three years and eight months? That seems tried and tested.

[Pete Wishart]

Why on earth should it not be this House that moves its dates? When this Bill was introduced, the Government knew there was to be a Scottish parliamentary election in 2015? Is it not the ultimate disrespect that this place expects the Scottish Parliament to move on its behalf?

[Jonathan Edwards]

Once again, my hon. Friend makes an important point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Shepherd]

But the options are closing. This measure is part of a constitutional package. We passed a piece of legislation that may introduce a new electoral system and that may ensure that no one party has an overall majority in the future, so to say that we are able to change something will be a matter of great negotiation across the Floor of the House. That is why I am very cautious about accepting changes to established norms and constitutional practice as we have experienced it over my lifetime and since 1911.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman talks of Asquith, but may I bring him up to date with perhaps a less illustrious modern Liberal, the Deputy Prime Minister? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this measure is all about survival? It is about a Liberal deal to try to get this coalition through and not at all about any great, grand constitutional reform. It is about the survival of the Liberals in this Government.

[Mr Shepherd]

We all draw our own conclusions, and I suggested something. What we are clear about is that the Deputy Prime Minister has just repudiated Liberal Democrat—as they now call themselves—fixed positions on two Bills. The first was the voting system, and the Liberals are doing the same on this measure; they had a fixed position but it is gone. We ask what the motives are, but there is no point in my attributing motives—the world and its wife will do that for us, so we do not need to worry about it.

What we want to maintain is the constitutional right of the people we represent and the balance of power within this Chamber between the Opposition and the Government, and between Front Benchers and Back Benchers. All that is now at risk and has been for a long time. We have to have that respect in ourselves back in this House; we have to believe that we can talk to Government freely and frankly. The purpose of my speech was, in part, to create a debate, rather than just to make a statement of fixed positions, because the calibration of each Member of Parliament is an important right in itself. This House must find that when dealing with something that most of us have not experienced before: a coalition. One party of that coalition took no part in the negotiations that formed what I call the “image of gold” but what is known as the coalition agreement; no one on my side formed that, other than those who are now in the Executive. So this matter is very difficult and very sensitive, which is why people are very delicate about it. However, we are now dealing with the substance of our old constitution and the merits of that, and it is its merits that I believe are stronger than the proposals put forward by the coalition.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

First, let me welcome the scrutiny that the Bill has now undergone. I know that there has been vigorous debate on all the Bill’s provisions, which is only right for a measure of such importance not just to this House but to the people we represent. It was also right that we should spend eight days on the Floor of the House debating the Bill, and that the House should have the opportunity, which it has taken, to divide on the key provisions before it goes for consideration to the other place.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

rose—

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I should like to make a bit of progress.

The Bill has been amended during its passage through this House. The Government accepted the Electoral Commission’s findings on the question—something that found support right across the House. The Bill also now includes detailed provision for the combination of the referendum with the other elections on 5 May, making the poll easier to run and allowing savings to be made.

Many Members have drawn attention to the constitutional importance of the changes that we propose: changes to deliver more equal constituencies, a House of Commons of reasonable size, and a referendum to give people a choice over their voting system. The Government recognise the significance of these measures. We also recognise that Members are not simply being asked to vote on these matters in the abstract, but that the changes have real consequences for Members of this House and for their constituents.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

It is because we are combining it with elections that are different in different parts of the UK. Picking up on points that hon. Members were making earlier, I can say that the poll cards issued will confirm the voting arrangements that will apply to a particular elector for each poll. They will explain to electors the arrangements in place, and people will be able to apply to the registration office to vary their postal voting arrangements up until 11 days before the poll, or six days before the poll where a proxy vote takes place. That will be helpful.

The Committee will want to be aware—certainly the hon. Member for Rhondda will—that I can confirm that all the new orders have been laid by the territorial offices today to update the rules for the elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales. Given that the combination amendments just discussed are based on existing legislation, as is usual practice, any consequential amendments reflecting those new territorial orders will be tabled for debate on Report next week, as I said last week.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Will the Minister detail to the Committee what discussions and consultation he has held with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly prior to the orders being laid?

[Mr Harper]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was here when we had a slight rehearsal of this discussion at the beginning of our sitting, but the hon. Member for Rhondda asked me what discussions I had had about the conduct of the referendum in the devolved nations and about the arrangements for the combined polls, and I made the point to him that arrangements for elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the responsibility not of Ministers in the devolved nations, but of the territorial Secretaries of State.

I also pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that I had written to explain how we would lay and handle the combination amendments. I wrote not just to Opposition Front Benchers and Members who had expressed an interest, but out of courtesy to the leaders of every party represented in the devolved Parliament and Assemblies in order to keep them confirmed.

I said also that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland have had discussions with representatives of the Administrations in each country about the combined elections, although it is fair to say that they all said to me—I shall not go through the issue in detail, because we had this debate at length on day one of Committee—that they were not happy with the combined poll.

[Pete Wishart]

Is it fair to characterise the Minister’s response as “No consultation with the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly or Northern Ireland Assembly”? Would that be roughly right?

[Mr Harper]

No. The conduct of elections is currently the responsibility of the territorial Secretaries of State. I also made the point to the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who was here at the beginning of our sitting, that with the Calman recommendations, the administration of elections in Scotland is proposed to be devolved to the Scottish Government. Clearly, if such elections were to take place in future, the Scottish Government would be very involved, but at the moment the responsibility for the administration of each election is that of the Secretary of State, not of the devolved Administrations.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

That is a defect of all alternative vote systems. One reason I like the first-past-the-post system is that it is clear for people to understand. The most popular candidate wins, and we do not get into this business of having to go for the lowest common denominator.

My amendment would put into the Bill the only AV system already operating in our country—it operates in London and the rest of England for mayoral elections.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Is not the hon. Gentleman proposing almost a semi-alternative vote, given that it would be a restriction on the whole concept of AV? Surely, it is up to electors. If they decide to list only two members among their favourites, that is their decision. Why does he seek to restrict the choice of voters? It is very uncharacteristic of him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is right that the boundaries be redrawn, whether in three years or seven? Does he agree that it is almost absurd and bizarre that Labour can secure 70% of the MPs from Scotland with 42% of the vote? Surely that is wrong and must be challenged.

[Chris Bryant]

Obviously I would love Labour to secure every single seat in Scotland, but I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to entice me to talk about proportional systems, which are not the material of part 2. As he knows, I believe that there is a case for reform and for redrawing boundaries, but how do we decide how that should be done? More importantly in the context of clause 8, we have to consider what time should be allocated for a boundary commission to be able to carry out a review in a genuinely independent way that meets political needs. I understand that he may believe that the boundaries in Scotland are currently drawn up so as to benefit Labour over the Scottish National party, but I am not sure whether that is true.

[Pete Wishart]

That is exactly what I contend. It takes many fewer electors in Scotland to elect a Labour MP than one of any other party. The reason why I believe a boundary review is necessary is that there is something wrong with the fact that 42% of the voters in Scotland can elect 70% of its MPs. Surely that cannot be right. As a fair man, surely the hon. Gentleman will concede that it is wrong.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman knows that in majoritarian systems, there is a disproportionate benefit for parties that get beyond 40% of the vote. That is a simple fact, so in a sense, his argument is partly in favour of a change to the electoral system, which I am sure he supports, although I suspect he supports a fully proportional system rather than the one subject to the referendum. However, it is not true to suggest—as we read in some of the propaganda—that it takes fewer votes to elect a Labour MP than a Conservative or Liberal MP. [Interruption.] I am not denying that that has happened, but it does not happen because of the drawing of the boundaries. It sometimes takes fewer votes to elect a Labour MP because of the tendency of likely Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat voters to live in certain areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Mulholland]

I take issue with the sentiment expressed by the hon. Gentleman. We must stop this being a partisan, party political matter. We are talking about electoral, constitutional and parliamentary changes. They should be taken very seriously, and every Member should speak on that basis and that basis alone.

[Pete Wishart]

We are getting to the heart of the debate now. This is what it is all about. As the hon. Gentleman has said, there is an in-built Labour advantage in the current arrangements, and the coalition are trying to deal with it. I am not in favour of retaining a Labour advantage in elections, because my party is at a disadvantage. Why is the hon. Gentleman in favour of that?

[Greg Mulholland]

It sounds to me as though the hon. Gentleman is thinking of his self-interest. My point is that that should not be the principle of changes of this nature. It should not be the approach of any party in the House or any individual hon. Member. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman thinks in those terms when it comes to such a major change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Given the depressing statistics that he has related to the Committee this evening—[Interruption.] Sorry for the confusion, Mr Hoyle. Given the depressing outlook of the figures that he has given about voter registration, can he explain what the previous Labour Government did to try to improve the situation?

[Paul Blomfield]

The previous Labour Government did a great deal. Much of the responsibility for execution, of course, lies with the city council, which is run by the Liberal Democrats and it characterised itself by turning voters away from the polling station.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

The hon. Gentleman knows all about conspiracy theories, and there will be people around the country with their own conspiracy theories about why so few Liberal Democrat Members are here.

The Bill has some positive aspects. In particular, some of us think that the proposals for a referendum on the voting system are good ones, but unfortunately we have concerns, as we will discuss, that other aspects of the Bill will do much to undermine, rather than enhance, British democracy. I am afraid that those aspects appear to be the product of narrow party interests, and given how the Bill has been drafted, there is a danger that those of us who would otherwise have supported it, and who ordinarily would have been allies of those on the coalition Front Bench and the Deputy Prime Minister will be forced to oppose it. The Committee has the opportunity to iron out those flaws so that the legislation can be made to support the high ideals of constitutional reform in the national interest, to which the coalition aspired only five months ago.

The starting point for today’s debate is clause 1, which, as was explained by the previous two speakers, stipulates that a referendum on moving to the alternative vote system for parliamentary elections “must” be held on 5 May 2011. As has been said by the chuntering hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), the Committee will know that only one party—the Labour party—went into the last election with a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on moving to AV. That commitment was made after an attempt by the then Labour Government to legislate for such a referendum earlier this year through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Unfortunately, however, those provisions were blocked by Conservative peers in the unelected House of Lords—so the conspiracy theory about why the Deputy Prime Minister is not here will continue. Furthermore, I am happy to note—and put the record right—that clauses providing for a referendum had previously been passed by a substantial majority thanks, in part, to the support of Liberal Democrat Members, one or two of whom have bothered to be here today while we discuss clause 1 of this great reforming Deputy Prime Minister’s Bill.

It is right to give the people a choice between the first-past-the-post and the alternative vote systems. AV is, like first past the post, a majoritarian system that maintains the single Member constituency link. However, it offers voters the ability to express a greater range of preferences than does first past the post, and that element has, arguably, become more salient in recent years, with the resurgence of multi-party politics in the late 20th century. AV is also more likely to secure the return of Members of Parliament with the preferences of more than 50% of electors. However, the strength of that likelihood varies depending on the form of AV used. It should be noted—I am sure that colleagues are aware of this—that the system proposed in the Bill allowing voters to express as many or as few preferences as they like would not guarantee the return of every Member with the preferences of more than 50% of electors. None the less, the voluntary model of AV on offer here could increase the legitimacy of the electoral process.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Is not even to call this a mouse of a proposal to give a mouse a bad name? It is like Mr and Mrs Mouse got together and had a huge litter of children—and this AV proposal is the runt of that litter.

[Sadiq Khan]

The hon. Gentleman was, I am sure, in the House when the then MP for Cambridge referred to it as a “jemmy in the door”. I am not sure what the current intentions or aspirations of the Liberal Democrats are—survival might be one of them—but it is just a nasty piece of work, because we are not sure what they stand for or what the end goal is. But that is what we have, and sometimes the best can be the enemy of the good. We are where we are.

Others, of course, favour retaining the existing, first-past-the-post system, believing it a more straightforward method of voting that is more likely to avoid hung Parliaments and unstable Governments. I respect those views. Such differences of opinion are as evident in the Labour party as they are anywhere else—I hasten to add that some of my best friends hold that view. Yet although many of my colleagues are divided on the merits of different electoral systems, we are united in our belief that we should have a public debate about whether to move to AV, and that the voters should be given the final choice in a referendum. Although we support such a referendum, we share the concerns that many have voiced about precisely what the best time to hold it is. We believe that there is a serious concern about whether it is wise to combine such a referendum with the elections on 5 May 2011, as clause 1 proposes.

If passed, the Bill will change the way we choose Members of our elected House of Commons, change the size of the House of Commons, change our boundaries and change the way we do politics for at least a generation. Let us compare and contrast the haste with which that is being done—something on which there is a genuine difference of view, and not just between political parties, but within them—with House of Lords reform. I am not being critical of the groundwork being done on House of Lords reforms. All parties and most MPs agree on the need to reform the House of Lords. However, this coalition Government have established a Joint Committee, which is currently meeting and chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, with a draft Bill to be published before the end of this year. The draft Bill will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee over several months, and a Bill will be formally presented to Parliament, with, I am sure, a lengthy Second Reading debate, followed by a Committee stage and so on. Why is House of Lords reform treated with such care, attention and detail, yet House of Commons reforms is treated with undue haste and contempt?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Laing]

Of course the hon. Gentleman may suggest that to me, and I am examining my conscience carefully in that respect. I have a lot of respect for him and he is doing well in persuading me. I am sure that he would be the first, among most Members in the Chamber this evening, to agree with me that our first loyalty must be not to our party, but to this House, to the democratic process and to the workings of our democracy, which have made ours the strong, great and fair country that it is. Our first loyalty must be to this Parliament, which has exported its fair and decent way of doing things and spread democracy around the world.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Lady mentions democracy and her point is spot on. How dare this mouse of a measure—this splinter of a suggestion—get in the way of the clear choice of the Scottish people? Surely that is a democratic outrage. We should have a free and fair election to decide who will be the Scottish Government, not this nonsense that is in the way, muddying the water.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I want to make a little headway on the detail of the Bill.

The Bill makes provision for the next parliamentary general election to be held on 7 May 2015.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Was the right hon. Gentleman aware of anything else happening in May 2015? National elections perhaps? Did he consider them and reject them? Why is he holding an election on the same day as the elections for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

If the hon. Gentleman can be patient, I will turn to that issue as it is a legitimate one. We had a debate last week about the coincidence of the date of the referendum being the same as that of the elections for the devolved Assemblies, but, as I shall acknowledge later, if he can hold on, I recognise that concerns about the coincidence of two parliamentary elections are qualitatively different and need to be examined further.

Each subsequent parliamentary general election after 7 May 2015 will be expected to occur on the first Thursday in May every five years, dovetailing with new arrangements that will see parliamentary Sessions run from spring to spring from 2012, as we have just heard from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

May I finish this point, and then I shall of course give way? Indeed, the hon. Lady might wish to answer a question that I am about to pose to her right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

Alongside the position adopted by a former Liberal Prime Minister—the last but one, it must be said, and look what happened to him and to his successor, although we need not detain the House on either of their fates—I want to refer to recent Liberal Democrat policy. I know that that apparently does not matter, but if the roles were reversed and if, just three years ago, the Labour party had said that there should be fixed Parliaments that should last four years, we would soon hear something about that from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches. We would hear suggestions that we were selling out and standing on our heads and that we did not know what we were talking about, and would be asked what was the point of making commitments—especially as simple a commitment as that—simply to tear them up. However, that was the Liberal Democrat position. They published a position paper—I am happy to take an intervention from the Deputy Prime Minister on this point—called “For the People, By the People”, which said that the term should be four years and not five. Let me gild that lily: David Howarth, the excellent former Member for Cambridge, introduced a ten-minute Bill to the sounds of cheering from the Liberal Democrat Benches that set a term of four years and not five. He made very good arguments that were absolutely right.

I am glad that the Deputy Prime Minister has at long last spotted that coinciding the date of a general election with that of national elections in Scotland and Wales is crazy and he is about to seek to go through hoops by which the people of Scotland and Wales and the political parties that are an essential part of the process—

[Pete Wishart]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Straw]

I shall in a second. Those people and parties would be burdened with two successive elections with substantial and understandable arguments about which should come first and which should come second. That could directly affect the outcome.

[Mr Straw]

I shall give way in a second.

The answer to all that is to go for four-year Parliaments. Among many others things, if we set a four-year Parliament this one would finish in 2014 and could never clash with the four-year cycle of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Mr Straw]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I promised the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) that I would give way to her first. I shall then give way both to him and the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea).

[Mr Straw]

I do not know whether the hon. Lady was in the House at the time, but I was responsible for that Bill, which emerged from cross-party negotiation. It was an agreed measure. As for the reference to five years, we were not setting the length of a Parliament in the Bill. We were accepting that as a fact and then determining how we dealt with party funding within that frame. There was no commitment whatever in principle in favour of five years rather than four.

[Pete Wishart]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct and spot-on in his views on five-year fixed-term Parliaments. I know that it is not my job as a Scottish National party Member to give the Labour party further reasons to vote against Third Reading, but will he guarantee to me that if there is no change in the date and if these elections are to clash, the Labour party will oppose the Bill?

[Mr Straw]

First, I cannot make that offer, not least because it is almost certain that it will not be me standing on the Front Bench, for reasons that the House knows. Although I keep saying that I will leave the Front Bench—and I have probably never been busier as a Front Bencher—it is my intention to do so. Secondly, it would be a matter for the shadow Cabinet and the parliamentary party even if I were to lead on this issue. As I have said to my other hon. Friends, we would weigh all these matters and come to a view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Allen]

I will have to let the Minister answer that question in the wind-up. With the first Bill—on AV and boundaries—there was a desire for a referendum in May and a great rush to secure one. With this Bill on fixed-term Parliaments, which would benefit immensely from study—not delay, but getting it right—I have not really had a sensible explanation as to why it is being pushed through in the brief period when the House is back in September.

The Bill as a concept—and so without a Second Reading—could have been discussed on the Floor of the House in June or July. Without any knowledge of the Bill, we could have discussed the key principles, but it was not put before us in a way that enabled the Committee to bring sensible and serious evidence before the House. If doing things that way could become part of the process, I would be very happy, but that would really mean putting it in Standing Orders. It is no good waiting for smoke signals from Ministers or the Leader of the House; it should be the right of this House to look at legislation. That should be what we expect, not something that may be handed down with a nod and a wink.

[Pete Wishart]

We all very much enjoy the hon. Gentleman’s evangelical speeches on behalf of empowering the House, but there are three representatives of minority parties in the Chamber, and he will know that we do not have the same access as hon. Members in the three big parties. What is he actively doing to ensure that we are represented in all those important Committees of the House? We are not on his Committee, for example, or on the Liaison Committee, and there are so many others. Surely he could help us a bit more to get there.

[Mr Allen]

I do not want to go over old ground—you might pull me up, Madam Deputy Speaker—but the hon. Gentleman will know that there are a number of us, not least among the Select Committee Chairs, working away on that issue to try to find a happy resolution. Unfortunately, what was agreed at that moment was a satisfactory compromise, but not exactly what we might all have wanted in those negotiations. None the less, that is something that the House must continue to pursue.

Another advantage of the predictability and continuity of a fixed-term Parliament would be that it would give Members of Parliament and their staff, and the staff of the House, some clarity about the House’s timetable and calendar. That would bring some stability to the way in which staff are employed, for example, and to their holidays and their terms and conditions. Such provisions in the Bill would also give electoral registration officers in every locality a greater length of time to prepare than they have when a snap election is called. We have heard, in a different context, lots of stuff about people failing to register. It would be well within the compass of election registration officers to build up a registration campaign ahead of key events such as general elections, and to plan ahead for such campaigns.

We have also heard—I think it was from the Deputy Prime Minister, or perhaps from an intervener on him—about the Electoral Commission’s report, which was published today. It talks about the importance of overseas and forces voters being registered properly, and a fixed-term Parliament could broaden our democracy by making that work. At heart, however, the Bill is about restoring policy questions to our politics, and about not being so distracted by the media blood sports relating to whether we are going to have an election, in whose favour it will be and when the Prime Minister is going to go to the palace.

Finally, I want to deal with the failure to get effective scrutiny for the Bill. That failure has meant that we have not been able to look at a large number of issues that attach to a fixed-term Parliament, including the use of royal prerogative powers and the strength of the Executive over Parliament. We have not been able to study the links between what we are proposing now and fixed-term Parliaments in other areas. We have not been able to examine prerogative powers in relation to proroguing Parliament. That has been mentioned tangentially, but why do we still have these obscure, ancient rights? No one, except those who work inside the Executive, seems to know quite where they come from or how they can be exercised. These things are not in our power; they are not part of Parliament’s mastery of its own destiny.

The power to set the date for the meeting of Parliament after a general election is not in the gift of the Members who have just been elected; it is in the gift of the Government. We are not masters of our own destiny in that regard. The power also exists for the Prime Minister to go to the Palace without any authority from Parliament. We talk about things being announced on the “Today” programme, but the Prime Minister does not even need to come to the House to announce that there is to be an election. He does not even have to come here, as the leader of the main party, to claim the right to be sent by Parliament to the palace. We see smoke and mirrors on general election night; colleagues are a passing butterfly of an electoral college that night, and they are expected simply to toe the line thereafter. That is what royal prerogative powers are about; what the term really means is Executive power. All those powers remain untouched and unlooked-at, because we were not allowed to scrutinise the Bill effectively.

I will vote for the Bill tonight. In principle, we need a fixed term for our Parliaments. We should debate on the Floor of the House whether it is four years or five. We should, however, have had proper scrutiny. That would have made this a better Bill. I say with some empathy for the coalition Government that, above all, if they want to change the way in which we are governed, and the way in which our democracy works, they cannot do it by the old methods. They have to reach out, explain and educate. If they do not, those people who would otherwise be their friends and make a consensus work, and who would make the new democracy work and give Parliament the rights that it deserves, will not be with them. It is a great mistake to push through legislation, particularly legislation of this nature, without trying to bring people with them, and the most important people to bring with them in that regard are Members of this House of all parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Williams]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I hesitate to agree because we are talking about national elections for countries—about two general elections happening simultaneously in the same country. That is the difference. We are talking about the relationship between the media and the campaigns and the ability of the Welsh and other Celtic nations to get their message across in the national media.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is on to a good point. I heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that a solution would be found, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would not be acceptable to have those elections only a few months apart? We cannot be in continual election mode in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for, say, six months a year. There has to be clear blue water between the elections.

[Mr Williams]

That is the debate that needs to be had. I took the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement as the opening gambit in that discussion. I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. For the First Minister in the Welsh context simply to tamper with the date and have a general election in Wales a month after a general election would be completely unacceptable. We would have two months of perpetual campaigning and the drowning out of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish issues would still very much apply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

“R-E-S-P-E-C-T” is what Aretha Franklin sang so heartily back in the 1960s. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position I am hearing pleas to sing, but I shall try to avoid doing that.

The same mantra has been adopted by the coalition Government in the context of their relationship with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Although no one would for a minute accuse Aretha of being anything less than passionate and committed to the respect agenda, I do not think that the same could be said of the coalition Government. They are not so much about “RESPECT” as “CONTEMPT”. What we have seen from them is not so much a respect agenda as an almost total contempt agenda. They do not consult our Governments about any legislation that they seek to introduce, although it introduces huge constitutional reforms. They do not take any of our objections or any of our realistic difficulties seriously. We are dismissed and almost belittled when we try to make complaints, and that is not good enough. This Conservative and Liberal Government will have to learn to engage properly with the devolved institutions of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. If they do not know the words of “Respect”, perhaps they should go and listen to Aretha once again.

This issue follows on from last week’s constitutional Bill, on which there was not a peep of consultation with any of the Governments of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, even though what is proposed in the Bills last week and today will have dramatic effects and a huge impact on the democratic processes in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I do not have a problem with fixed-term Parliaments; we have them in Scotland and they work perfectly well. Everybody understands that we will have an election every four years. They get rid of the whole idea of prime ministerial or first ministerial advantage. They get rid of the silly and ridiculous situation we had last year when a lame duck Prime Minister hung on to the last possible minute, seeing if there were any advantage in calling an early election, and then eventually went the full term. Fixed-term Parliaments get rid of all that nonsense and are, in effect, a good thing. I support them.

But why five years? I struggle to understand why we need to have five years for fixed-term Parliaments. Why not get in line with the rest of the UK? It is four years in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Were we to adopt a four-year fixed-term Parliament, we would not have the difficulties of clashing with the Welsh, Northern Irish or Scottish elections. Surely that should be the real intention. Let us not create constitutional confusion in this country. Let us try to make sure that people can understand what is going on.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that most modern comparable democracies, including elsewhere in the UK, have four-year fixed terms?

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee analysed legislatures throughout the world and found that the norm was four years and that five years was very unusual. Surely the Government should be looking at what is the norm throughout the world.

[Andrew Percy]

As interesting as it is to hear about what is happening in other countries, I am more interested in what happens here. The hon. Gentleman will of course be aware that the average length of a Parliament in this country since 1945 has been 3.7 years. Actually, four years would be a very British thing to do.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful for that intervention. The shadow Justice Secretary made that point earlier. We have learned some fascinating pieces of electoral history today. The point is well made; when it comes to talking about the history of this nation—never mind international examples—four years seems to be just about the right length of time for a Parliament to get its legislative programme through.

If we move to five years, the next general election will be on the same date as the elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. What on earth were the people who came up with the Bill thinking about? Surely they looked at the date of May 2015 and thought, “Wait a minute. Something happens that day.” Surely they should have thought that the thing that will happen that day is the elections throughout the rest of the UK. Either they did not know or they did not care. Which was it? Did they not care that having those elections on the same day would result in absolute and total confusion? Does the Minister know that there are different constituencies for the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments? Two different sets of returning officers and polling staff would be required. God knows what the counts would be like, but it would be an absolute recipe for total disaster.

Any Scottish election campaign inevitably would be drowned out by the London metrocentric media. There would be leaders’ debates without any representatives of the Scottish Government involved. The campaign would be skewed towards the big parties. We would have no chance whatever of getting our point across. All domestic issues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be totally and utterly overlooked. It is not right, it is not fair and it is not the way to proceed with our democracy in the UK.

It is not just about elections; it is about democracy and ensuring that people can make an informed choice when they come to put their cross on the ballot paper, whether for this House, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly or local elections.

I listened with real interest and care to what the Deputy Prime Minister said about trying to address the problem. I accept that he is sincere and I look forward to hearing further plans for how that will be done, but we cannot do it now. The returning officers in the other Parliaments and Assemblies have the power to alter the timing and dates of an election by one month. One month would make no difference whatever. Can we imagine how ridiculous it would be? We would just have gone through an election and would be celebrating victories—we hope—and then we would be off to the next one without having time to draw breath. That is nonsense and must be looked at properly.

The Government will have to devolve powers to the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. That would mean reopening the relevant legislation, as that would be the only way to do it. These powers should be transferred to the Scottish Parliament so that it can determine its election date.

I heard the Secretary of State for Scotland talk about a six-month gap between the Scottish and Westminster parliamentary elections. I do not know whether the coalition Government are starting to put that together as a solution, but six months is not good enough either. That would mean almost a whole year of elections. We would just conclude one campaign and then we would start another.

[Mrs McGuire]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I am sorry, I cannot. I have only three minutes left and I have a few more things to say.

We need a clear space, and six months is not sufficient to ensure properly contested election campaigns. Why must the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments move their dates? We have had our election dates set in stone since 1999. The next election will be the fourth we will contest. The Government knew that these elections would take place in May 2015. Surely it is this House that should move its date; it could go six months earlier or later. It just is not fair or right. I look forward to the Government’s proposals but they must be substantial because what has been proposed so far is not good enough.

I am pleased that the Government got rid of the silly notion of a 55% threshold for the Dissolution of Parliament. I heard some utter nonsense about the programme for dissolving the Scottish Parliament in defence of the 55% proposal. I am pleased that the Government did, more or less, adopt the Scottish system for Dissolution almost in full, and that is right.

I want to conclude with a few words from Ron Gould, the man who was drafted in by the Electoral Commission and the Scotland Office to look at the disaster that was the last Scottish parliamentary elections. We remember it not only because of the fantastic SNP victory, but because of the 140,000 spoilt ballot papers that resulted from the previous Government’s combining of local authority elections with Scottish parliamentary elections, using three different electoral systems. We cannot allow that to happen again. The paramount concern of the House must be the electorate; they must have free and fair elections and must not be confused as to how they make their choice.

Aretha sang about respect. I hope that the Minister is listening, that he can start to get the respect agenda back on the rails and that he will listen to the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so that we do not have three elections on the same day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to make some progress.

On the subject of the date and combination of the elections, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear that the Government draw a distinction between the coincidence of the referendum next year and parliamentary or Assembly elections—a combination that we think is perfectly justifiable when there is a simple yes-no decision—and the coincidence of elections to different Parliaments or Assemblies. He accepted that such elections were more complex and made it very clear that the Government will engage and continue to engage with devolved Administrations.

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

Let me just make the point about Scotland and then I will give way. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, for example, has written to the leaders of each of the groups in the Scottish Parliament, the Presiding Officer, Opposition spokesmen in this House and the Chairman of the Select Committee and intends to continue that dialogue. Indeed, I will meet him to discuss this matter further. We take these issues seriously and are not just paying lip service to them.

[Pete Wishart]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He will have heard the strong representations in today’s debate about the combination of both elections. We must hear a little more from the Minister about the specific proposals to ensure that there is no clash in the election dates. What is in his mind about how we can untie and unlock the two elections?

[Mr Harper]

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have it both ways. If I were to come out with specific proposals before we have discussed them in detail with representatives from the devolved Administrations and from those Assemblies and Parliaments, he would rightly criticise me for being high-handed. The Deputy Prime Minister has made it very clear that we want to solve this problem.

On the issue of not having consulted people in advance, however, I think it is right that, unlike what happened under the previous Government, proposals brought forward by the Government should be announced to this House first before they are discussed with others. That explains why we did not hold those discussions with others first.

On the issue of confidence and the mechanism for motions of confidence, a number of colleagues on both sides of the House seem to be a little confused about the present position. This Bill does not change the position in any way. The right hon. Member for Knowsley and my hon. Friends the Members for Epping Forest and for Christchurch (Mr Chope) all appeared to confuse to some extent our proposals on confidence and on Dissolution. It is very clear that, on confidence, we are not changing the position at all. The Government must have a simple majority in this House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) worried about a change of Government without an election. That can happen now, so that is not a change. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) said that there was an automatic right for an election following the loss of a confidence vote. There is no such automatic right—that is a matter of judgment for Her Majesty the Queen.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Having sat here for rather a long time, I am pleased to have had the benefit of hearing the many wise heads who spoke before me. I am glad to be following the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) because I completely disagree with her. I think that the Bill is totally about democracy. I also disagree with a number of my hon. Friends on this matter. Before the general election, people in this country were clamouring for change—to be given more of a voice and more of a say in how they voted. They certainly wanted the cost of politics and the number of MPs to be reduced. I really believe that there is a democratic requirement to hold the referendum in the interests of promoting our democracy.

That is one reason why I will support the Bill. The other, which is also very much in the interests of democracy, is that we forged a coalition Government in the interests of the country. Had we not done so, we might have limped on in minority government for a few months, or, worse still, the British public might have ended up with the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) still as their Prime Minister in a Lib-Lab coalition. Those two outcomes would have been a disaster, so we had to form a coalition and the Bill was the price that we had to pay. For that reason, too, I believe that we should support the Bill.

Having said all that, when it comes to the referendum, I am a huge advocate of first past the post, and there are three key reasons for that. First, only first past the post provides a clear choice of candidate. People clearly state their preference and get no other alternative, so somebody that they might quite like or have heard of does not end up with their second or third preference vote. They end up with a single Member of Parliament to whom they can relate in their own constituency. Any other system of voting introduces an element of lottery, in which some people vote for only one candidate and some vote for five. If enough vote for five, even when they do not know their fourth, third and second choices, a candidate can be elected to Parliament whom nobody really wanted but who was the lowest common denominator. That is a disaster, and first past the post does not deliver that.

A second reason why I am a strong advocate of first past the post is that we generally end up with a strong Government with a single manifesto. We have already seen, to the cost of many of us, and will no doubt see even more in future, what the downside of coalition government is. It is surely this Bill coming before Parliament, which is the price that has had to be paid to bring together a strong and workable Government. It was not in our manifestos and the people did not vote for it. In fact, although a lot of people have said that no one cares about AV or first past the post, that is not strictly true. A long-standing Conservative party member in my constituency resigned his membership card recently, and why? Because his Conservative Government are now putting in place policies that were not in our manifesto and for which he did not vote. That is the price that we pay for coalitions, and anything other than first past the post will inevitably lead to a greater propensity to coalition Governments.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Does not first past the post lead to some curious results? For example, the Conservatives in Scotland got 17% of the vote but one Member of Parliament. Meanwhile, Labour secured a third of the votes in Scotland and got two thirds of the MPs. Surely that must be wrong.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, but we have debated the matter at length this afternoon and evening and all agreed that first past the post is not the perfect system. No system is, but nevertheless first past the post offers the chance of a clear preference. The person who is the most popular wins a seat, rather than somebody’s second or third choice or the person they hated least. That is the benefit of it. Voters get a single manifesto and can then hold their Government to account on it.

That leads me on to the third important point about first past the post, which is that we get the ability to sack a Government when they have reached the point when we no longer want them. In Germany, for example, where they have long had proportional representation, every time there is a general election they wake up with the same people involved in government, but just with the deckchairs moved around slightly. The same can happen with the alternative vote. The day after polling day in this country, we could have ended up still looking at the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. That would have been very bad for democracy, and I believe that first past the post is the right thing for this country and for our democracy.