Public Disorder

Peter Tapsell Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said today, but also for what he has said in recent days, and, if I may say so, the way in which he has said it. He made a number of points.

First, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to praise the emergency services and the work they have done. It is particularly remarkable that in spite of the fact that fires have been started in many cities across our country, there have been no casualties from those fires. That speaks volumes about the professionalism and brilliance of our firefighters nationwide.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that it is important that as soon as possible we get our high streets, cities and towns back to a real sense of normality. That has to start with the increased police presence so that people feel the confidence to go out and enjoy their towns and cities, and I believe that that will happen, so that our cities become the great and bustling places that we want them to be.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the police, the courts, communities and the deeper lessons, so let me just say a word about each. I chose my words on the Army carefully. None of us wants to see a break away from the great British model of policing where the public are the police and the police are the public, but Governments have a responsibility to try to look ahead at contingencies and potential problems, and to start asking about potential problems and difficulties in advance. That is exactly what Cobra has done—for instance, by simply asking whether there are tasks, such as some simple guarding tasks, that could be done that would free up police for more front-line duties. This is not for today, or even for tomorrow; it is just so that there are contingency plans should they become necessary.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about operational costs. Of course, the Treasury reserve is being used. He asked about policing numbers beyond the weekend. Deployment must be an issue and a matter for police chiefs. They will want to assess the intelligence and the situation before making those decisions, but they should feel free to deploy as many police as they need for as long as they need. What matters most of all, more than anything else, is restoring order on our streets.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of police budgets, and I am sure that this will be debated. Let me just make a couple of points. Over the next four years, we are looking for cash reductions in policing budgets—once we take into account the fact that there is a precept that helps fund the police—of 6%. I believe that is totally achievable without any reductions in visible policing, and a growing number of police chiefs are making that point.

Let me make two additional points on that. Today we still have 7,000 trained police officers in back-office jobs. Part of our programme of police reform is about freeing up police for front-line duties, and that is why I can make this very clear pledge to the House: at the end of this process of making sure our police budgets are affordable, we will still be able to surge as many police on to the streets as we have in recent days in London, in Wolverhampton, in Manchester. It is important that people understand that.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the courts system and whether we can surge capacity in our magistrates and Crown courts. Yes, that is exactly what Cobra has been asking for in recent days. On sentencing, I chose my words carefully. Of course, it is for courts to sentence, but the Sentencing Council says that those people found guilty of violence on our streets should expect to have a custodial sentence.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about CCTV. We fully support CCTV. We want to regulate it to make sure that it is used properly, but it has been immensely valuable, as I have seen for myself in police control rooms up and down the country.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be any cap on the money that is available for communities. Of course, the Riot (Damages) Act has no cap at all, and because we are allowing the 42-day period people will be able to apply to the police and the Government will stand behind the police.

When it comes to the deeper lessons, the right hon. Gentleman is right. He quoted a speech that I made when I said that explaining does not mean excusing, and he is right to say that the causes are complex. I hope that the debates we will have on the causes will not immediately fall into a tiresome discussion about resources. When there are deep moral failures, we should not hit them with a wall of money. I think that it is right that the absolutely key word that he used, and which I used, was responsibility. People must be responsible for their actions. We are all responsible for what we do.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked how we will listen to communities and what sort of inquiry is necessary. As I found when talking with many Members on both sides of the House, who are deeply in touch with their communities, their police forces and police chiefs, one of the first things we can do in this House is properly bring to bear all the information we are hearing from our communities, and I understand that the Home Affairs Select Committee is going to hold an inquiry. I think that we should ask a parliamentary inquiry to do this work first. I thank him for the general tone of what he said and hope that we can keep up this cross-party working as we deal with this very difficult problem.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Why have our police been dispersing these hoods so that they can riot in other vicinities, instead of rounding them up? Does the Prime Minister remember that in 1971, at the peak of the opposition to the Vietnam war in the United States, the US Government brought 16,000 troops into Washington, in addition to the police, who rounded up and arrested the rioters and put 40,000 of them in the DC stadium in one morning? Has he any plans to make Wembley stadium available for similar use?

[The Prime Minister]

I want the Wembley stadium to be available for great sporting events, and I think that it is important that as we get back to a sense of normality those sporting events go ahead. My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and to be fair to the police—we should all think carefully before starting to criticise police tactics when they are the ones on the front line—they now say that to begin with they spent too much time concentrating on the public order aspects and not enough time concentrating on the criminality aspects. It has been the greater police presence on the streets and the greater number of arrests that has helped to bring this situation under control. One police chief told me yesterday that it is time to tear up some of the manual on public order and restart it. He said, “We have done this many times in the police and we will do it again and get it right.” It is in that spirit that we should praise British policing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Tapsell Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we want to get the tests right, but I believe that the tests are showing that it has been wrong to leave so many people on benefits for so long without proper assessment. Of course, we can always improve the processes, and we will ensure that we do that as we go along, but I think it is absolutely right to go through people on all benefits and ask whether they can work, and what help they need to work. Then if they are offered work that they do not take, frankly, they should not go on getting benefits.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Now that there is to be a full investigation into the abduction or murder of Madeleine McCann, is there not a much stronger case for a full investigation into the suicide or murder of Dr David Kelly?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is raising two issues. First, on the issue of Madeleine McCann, it is welcome that the Metropolitan police have decided to review the case and the paperwork. On the issue of Dr David Kelly, I thought the results of the inquest that was carried out and the report into it were fairly clear, and I do not think it is necessary to take that case forward.

Libya/European Council

Peter Tapsell Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I just remind the House that, in keeping with the convention, Members who entered the Chamber after the Prime Minister started his statement should not expect to be called.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

On the economic aspect of the Prime Minister’s statement, does he agree that the recent election in Germany shows that the German people have lost patience with the European Union, as have the British electorate?

[The Prime Minister]

I am not an expert in the politics of Baden Württemberg, but I suspect that this is partly about the euro and the effects of the euro. I think that there are also strong feelings about nuclear power in Germany. The point I would make is that whatever our views about the euro—I think that my hon. Friend and I agree that we should stay out of it—it is in Britain’s interests that the eurozone sorts itself out, because that is the destination for a lot of our exports. So we should support these countries in what they want to do to deal with their problems and challenges.

Japan and the Middle East

Peter Tapsell Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

There was a discussion about that, and the Council’s conclusions talk about the Benghazi council being a legitimate political interlocutor, which is important. The French have obviously formally recognised that organisation. As for Britain’s position, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, we recognise countries rather than Governments, but we want a dialogue and to have contact with the Libyan opposition, so we will be going ahead with that. We do, however, have a different legal position of recognising countries, not Governments.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Do President Obama and Chancellor Merkel support the idea of an intervention in another Islamic state?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend, who speaks with great passion about these things, puts it in a very particular way. I have spoken with President Obama; he said, very clearly, that he wants Gaddafi to go. Chancellor Merkel signed up to a European Council statement that Gaddafi should go. When we are talking about intervention here, we are talking about the world coming together, having tough UN sanctions, putting in place a resolution, turning up the pressure, and looking at possibilities like a no-fly zone that could help to protect the Libyan people. As I said in my statement, it is not in our interests that we end up with Gaddafi still in power, in charge of what will become a pariah rogue state on the borders of Europe causing huge amounts of difficulty for everyone else. This is in our interests; it is not some great adventure that is being planned, if I may reassure my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Tapsell Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

This House will obviously have a lot of opportunity to debate the Welfare Reform Bill, which is one of the most complex and detailed pieces of legislation on reforming our welfare system. On DLA specifically, what we are looking for, in terms of the gateway, is to make sure that people have a proper assessment for DLA, because there are too many cases where people need it and do not get it and, regrettably, some cases where people do not need it and do get it, and we need to put that right.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

While we must clearly do everything that we can to help the non-Libyans who are seeking to get out of that country, may we hope that the Libyans will be allowed to determine the fate of Colonel Gaddafi?

[The Prime Minister]

I very much hope that they do. We should support and say how much we admire those brave people who are standing up in their own country asking for greater freedoms and greater democracy—for things that we take for granted in our own country. What has been striking is that although many said that any sort of rebellion like this would be extremist, or Islamist, or tribal, it is none of those things; it is a revolt by the people, who want to have greater democracy in their country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Tapsell Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As I said before, wrongdoing has clearly been committed if someone is given a prison sentence, and I think that any prison sentence of any length should disqualify MPs. Otherwise, we clearly need to establish a mechanism here in the House to prove serious wrongdoing, and only once that has been established would we grant electors the right, following a petition of 10% of the electors, to trigger a by-election—[Interruption.] I think that the hon. Gentleman is asking from a sedentary position whether that mechanism should be without any kind of filtering here in the House. The honest truth is that if we did it like that, and had a sort of free-for-all, there would be a real danger of a lot of vexatious and unjustified claims being made against one Member by others.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Will extreme care be taken in the drafting of the legislation to ensure that in absolutely no circumstances will a recall of a Member of Parliament be possible because of the way in which a Member votes or speaks—however objectionably—or because he changes party, as Winston Churchill did on two occasions?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

We certainly would not want a recall mechanism that would have disqualified Winston Churchill. Precisely for the reasons that my hon. Friend has alluded to, we need to ensure that the system contains checks and balances so that it does not impinge on the freedom of Members on both sides of the House to speak out and articulate our views. That will not be the purpose of the recall mechanism. Its purpose will be to bear down on serious wrongdoing and to give people a chance to have their say in their own constituencies without having to wait until the next election for an opportunity to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Tapsell Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The pledge I would make is this. As the hon. Gentleman has just revealed, we have health inequalities in our country that are as bad as those in Victorian times. Let us be frank: we have those after a decade of increased money going into the NHS and we are not getting it right. That is the reason for carrying out these reforms. If we just stay where we are, as seems now to be the policy of the Labour party, we will lag behind on cancer, we will lag behind on heart disease and his constituents will die younger than mine because we do not have a fair system. Let us reform it and sort it out.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Did my right hon. Friend tell the Prime Minister of France last week that Britain will never permit fiscal control of its economy by the European Union?

G20 Summit

Peter Tapsell Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Oh dear. First of all, it is lovely to see the right hon. and learned Lady back.

On the Chandlers, I very much agree with what the right hon. and learned Lady said. I spoke to Paul Chandler this morning. It is hard to imagine what that family has been through, and it is great that they are now safely in Kenya and are soon to fly home. I am sure the whole House will want to wish them well.

Let me try to answer all the right hon. and learned Lady’s points. On development, which is something that Britain very much puts on the agenda at such meetings—I spoke up very firmly about the pledges that we had made—she is right in one sense. We talk about global imbalances. There is a huge imbalance between the rich world and the poor world, and if we can get people in the poorest parts of the world to join the world economy, we will all benefit.

On climate change, the key point is we are prepared to sign up to another Kyoto-style period, but we have got to have global agreement where others agree to sign agreements as well. That is the point that we will continue to push. The right hon. and learned Lady raised a point about the introduction of the Basel III accords and how we balance wanting safety in our financial institutions with an increase in bank lending. That is one of the reasons why Basel III is phased in the way it comes in.

The right hon. and learned Lady raised the issue of the deficit and made the usual accusation that, in Britain, we are acting too fast in dealing with it. I just think that Labour is completely wrong about this. The alternative to dealing with the deficit would not be some beautiful period of uninterrupted growth; it would involve putting ourselves in the same category as countries in which interest rates are rising and confidence is falling. That is the alternative, and that is where she and her party would have landed us.

The right hon. and learned Lady said that there were great disagreements over currencies, but if she looks at the language of the communiqué—perhaps next time she will read it before writing her script—she will see a lot of agreement on not having competitive devaluations over imbalances. She is right to say that this issue is not going to be solved overnight; I said that in my statement. We are asking different countries to do different things in order to achieve a maximum global outcome. That is tough and difficult, but there was progress at the summit. I also heard direct from the Chinese about their plans to rebalance their own economies.

The right hon. and learned Lady asked what we had brought to the table. The idea of a pan-African trade deal was not on the G20 agenda; we put it on the G20 agenda. The idea of pushing further ahead on Doha by making the deal bigger was a French, German and British initiative that we did at Doha and that pushed the Americans and others to go further. On the issue of imbalances, the key compromise to get the Americans and the Chinese together was again something that was pushed very much by the Germans and the British.

I think that the right hon. and learned Lady is completely wrong about this. If Labour had been at this G20, it would have been completely isolated over the issue of the deficit. Everyone else in the room was signing a communiqué on how we have to take early action on deficits. That is the consensus, but Labour is completely outside the consensus. One group of people represented at the meeting was the International Monetary Fund, and I suspect that if she had been there, she would have been locked in a room with them.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Did the G20 discuss the situation of the Irish banks which, because of the potential knock-on effects, could pose as great a threat to the world economy as did Lehman Brothers, AIG and Goldman Sachs in September 2008? If so, what view did the Prime Minister’s colleagues take of Chancellor Merkel’s stated determination not to allow her taxpayers to bail out the gamblers who made great fortunes by taking the risks that have created the present crisis, even if that led to the default of national banks?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend asks an important question. The issue of Ireland was not specifically discussed at the G20. A statement was issued by a number of European Finance Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, about the mechanism that will be put in place in the eurozone, because there was a concern that what had been thought about was having a negative impact on Ireland. Obviously, eurozone and European Prime Ministers and Finance Ministers at these gatherings always meet and discuss the health of the European economy and the eurozone. I do not want to speculate about another country’s finances. I recognise that the Irish are taking very difficult action to try to get their own fiscal situation under control. Like the United Kingdom, they obviously have very large banks that have got themselves into difficulty and that have to be managed out of the process. We very much hope that all that will take place.

European Council

Peter Tapsell Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

As it appears that the treaties of the European Union can be changed on the insistence of a German Chancellor, is it possible to give a British Prime Minister the same opportunities, thus enabling him to give his country the pledge of the referendum that was promised to them? Is that so, or not?

[The Prime Minister]

If there were any prospect of a passage of power from Britain to Brussels, we should have a referendum. That is not just my word: we are going to legislate to put it into place. But the question that we must answer here—this goes directly to what my right hon. Friend has said—is, “What is it in Britain’s national interest to try to insist on at this time?” In my view it is the budget, and the amount of money that goes from Britain to Brussels, into which we should be putting our efforts. That is what I did, and that is what I am going to go on doing.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Peter Tapsell Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I wish to speak in support of new clause 7, which was so ably introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), and to comment on the related issues of the number of MPs and the number of Ministers with which it deals. Paragraph 24 of the coalition programme for government, the contents of which we are, in part, debating today, starts with the words:

“The Government believes that our political system is broken. We urgently need fundamental political reform”.

I totally dissociate myself from that shameful statement. If it were true, all the political leaders of recent years ought to resign their seats because they would be responsible. Our “political system is broken” it says. That was the slogan of Oswald Mosley and the British fascists when I was a boy. Mosley spent the war in prison and the political system he despised and described as broken triumphed at home and abroad. Our political system is not broken. We have had some nincompoop Front Benchers, some expense-fiddling Back Benchers and even some who managed to qualify under both categories, but our political system is basically sound and, in parliamentary terms, not very different from what it was in 1945, 1918 and 1815.

It is the duty of an incoming Government in a democratic country to work within the rules and conventions of its political system, not to change those rules and conventions to fit their temporary party political convenience—that is a privilege usually reserved for banana republics. That is why I am opposed to all the so-called constitutional changes proposed in the coalition programme. The Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday—appropriately on “Desert Island Discs”—that when he met the leader of the Conservative party after the election, they agreed together that in the general election both their parties had lost. We should try to reverse that decision of the electorate not by changing the rules of the game but by raising the standard of government. We do not have too many MPs: we have too many Ministers and too many placemen, to use Sir Robert Walpole’s phrase to describe the proliferation of what Disraeli later described as the Tadpoles and Tapers of politics, who are now being proliferated to an astonishing degree.

In 1900, when we were the richest and most powerful nation in the world, there were nine Parliamentary Private Secretaries. By 2000, the number had gone up to 47 and it is rising daily.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman said that in 1900 the UK was the richest nation in the world. Today, in The Scotsman, I read that among the top 15 most prosperous nations, the UK finds itself in the unlucky 13th place, behind Norway at No. 1 and noticeably behind Ireland and Iceland, respectively at 11th and 12th. That is just a point of information.

[Sir Peter Tapsell]

It is very interesting—even if incomprehensible to me. I make the point in passing that Scotland has gained even more than Britain from the combination of our two countries since the Act of Union.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the Irish Republic would be better off as part of the UK, or has the Irish Republic prospered and done far better by leaving the UK?

[Sir Peter Tapsell]

Curiously enough, I shall come to the question of the Irish Republic a little later in my remarks, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.

Although by 2000 the total number of MPs involved in Government had already gone up from 42 in 1900 to 129, the number of Cabinet Ministers has not greatly increased. It is the number of loyal, but little known and easily sackable bag carriers that has ballooned. At the election, we in the Conservative party were pledged to make Government more answerable to Parliament. How is that to be achieved by maintaining the number of Ministers and increasing the number of PPSs, yet at the same time reducing the number of MPs? At this rate, genuine Government Back Benchers will become a threatened species. There will be no more Pitts attacking Walpole, no more Disraelis attacking Peel and no young Macmillans attacking Chamberlain, yet that is part of the lifeblood of our parliamentary story.

On what grounds is it claimed, historically, statistically or in terms of accommodation, that we have too many MPs? Germany, Australia and the United States, with their federal structures, have far more elected representatives, at various levels of their constitution, than we have. Over the past two centuries, our population has increased from about 16 million in 1800 to about 62 million today. We now have 650 MPs. The proposal is to reduce the number to 600. In 1801, shortly before Trafalgar, there were 658 MPs. In 1885, in the heyday of Liberalism, there were 670 MPs. In the 1918 general election, 707 MPs were elected to the House, before the southern Irish were hived off in 1922—the year in which the Back Benchers of the Tory party reasserted themselves and got rid of Lloyd George.

Universal suffrage was not fully achieved until 1929, but in the two previous centuries the voteless masses were never out of the minds of wise MPs and Ministers. In 1801, the number of people, as distinct from voters, in each constituency averaged 24,000—although it varied a good deal from constituency to constituency. Today, the number is 95,000 and the majority are electors. If we reduce the number of MPs to 600, as is proposed, that average population figure will become 103,000, quadrupled from the 25,000 of 1800 when they had more MPs than we have today. Also, the demands of a constituency on its Member of Parliament have enormously increased in recent years. In my first Parliament, I shared one secretary with two other young and active MPs; now I have three secretaries working for me alone.

Coalition Ministers, in their programme document, claim to hold our political system in contempt, but the strange fact is that the part of the system that undoubtedly works best is that in which the Government are least involved. The best aspect of modern politics is the close personal relationship between MPs and their constituents. Its closeness and extent is unique. Even in Switzerland, the cantonal MP is not seen as being so close and available as most MPs of all parties are seen to be by their constituents in Britain.

While the media and many members of the public often express contempt for our leading political figures—but not, of course, for the Leader of the House—at grass-roots level, whatever the politics of their MP, people are more likely to say, “My own MP does a good job in the constituency, and when I am in trouble, I know that he will do his best to help me.” That is the strongest of all the present bulwarks of our democratic parliamentary system.

At a time of economic failure, disgruntled police, fearful public servants, a neglected army and hostile trade unions, which in many countries would be regarded as a dangerous quintet, why tamper with that bulwark? When there are so many more pressing issues to be solved, why set many MPs, even of the same party—or particularly of the same party—at the political throats of their neighbours, as rumours of boundary changes begin to abound? My local press has already speculatively redrawn the six Lincolnshire constituencies and abolished one of them, to general dismay and the discouragement of activists of all parties. Why muddy the political waters with the inevitable charges of gerrymandering, which are certain to be thrown about?

Very wisely, in the United States, changes to the actual constitution occur only very rarely, after years of discussion, and they require a two-thirds majority of both Houses of Congress and the approval of the Supreme Court. In this debate on new clause 7, I have spoken about only two aspects of the so-called constitutional reforms, but in my view, the wide range of constitutional and electoral changes proposed by the coalition Government, taken as a whole, and introduced so early in the life of a Parliament full of new Members, constitute an attempt at a peaceful, political coup d’état, with the sole object of securing the position of Ministers. They have no mandate for the Bill from the country. I therefore urge this Committee to accept new clause 7, and urge the House in due course to reject the whole Bill on Third Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Of course; I did not mean to be ungenerous to the hon. Member for Broxbourne, as I think he well knows. I was praising his ambition, which need not be for the greasy pole—it might be for other things in life.

The right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell)—

[Sir Peter Tapsell]

I am not right honourable.

[Chris Bryant]

Well, the hon. Gentleman should be. He carries himself as if he were right honourable—if not most reverend as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, he delivered his remarks with a magisterial largesse—[Interruption.] No, I was not going to say laissez faire.

The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle made some extremely good points, and I hope that many Members will reject the Bill on Third Reading for precisely the reasons he advanced. One of the arguments I have tried to make throughout is that I fully understand why many hon. Members feel that, following the expenses saga in particular, we need to be very humble about the authority of the House and individual Members. However, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We should be proud of our representative democracy and the system we have. It does not work perfectly. There are things that have to be improved. As in the church, there will always be things that are semper reformanda. However, we should not in the process suddenly start to say that the whole of the political system is corrupt, wrong and rotten, and that therefore we have to start all over again.

I differ from the hon. Gentleman on one point. He said that the system is not much different from that in 1945, 1918 and 1850—

[Sir Peter Tapsell]

1815.

[Chris Bryant]

1815?

[Sir Peter Tapsell]

Waterloo.

[Chris Bryant]

Well, my point remains. Neither in 1815 nor in 1850 were miners able to vote, because they did not qualify under the franchise. In 1885, they were allowed to, but women were not. One can make significant changes to the system, although I think the hon. Gentleman holds a different view from me about reform of the House of Lords. That is where I agree more with the Government Front-Bench team. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had any particular tadpoles or nincompoops in mind—I can see some images flitting across his mind now, which suggests he had some specific people in mind.

The hon. Member for Broxbourne referred directly to the argument that the Deputy Prime Minister made in January in favour of cutting the House of Commons to 500 Members and the number of Ministers to 73, but of course that is not at all the proposal before us. The right hon. Gentleman has adopted neither measure. It might be that having picked one tune on “Desert Island Discs” on Sunday, he changes his tune entirely when it is replayed on Thursday. That is clearly the situation we have at the moment.

Our system has changed over the generations because it has not been considered right and proper that Ministers thought of their salary or pension as just a tiny part of their remuneration for being in hock to the Crown and that all the other monopolies and benefits accruing by virtue of how they operated their ministerial office brought in far more money. It was Edmund Burke who, in 1782, first introduced changes that meant that Ministers of the Crown had to rely on the properly arrived at financial provisions, rather than on the previous system which was completely and utterly corrupt. As Macaulay said of the 18th century:

“From the noblemen who held the white staff and the great seal, down to the humblest tidewaiter and gauger, what would now be called gross corruption was practiced without disguise and without reproach.”

Many in previous generations exercised their ministerial functions solely on the basis of financial corruption. Ministers accumulated enormous fortunes by virtue of being Ministers. It is right and proper that we do not have that system today, and if anybody in the British political system does accumulate, by virtue of their political office, an enormous fortune, there is something going wrong—IPSA must have allocated everything that we have all claimed to just one individual Member.

There was substantial change in 1831 through the Select Committee on the Reduction of Salaries. It suggested a completely different structure, which ended up with William Pitt the Younger, when he was First Lord of the Treasury, earning just £5,000 by virtue of that post, although he had other posts that earned him some £4,300. Today, that would be a considerable amount of money for ministerial office, but at the time MPs were not paid at all.

Today’s system relies on two pieces of legislation from 1975, the Ministerial and other Salaries Act, and the House of Commons Disqualification Act, to which the new clause in the name of the hon. Member for Broxbourne refers. Both specify that the number of Ministers shall be 95. The Ministerial and other Salaries Act also lays out how many Cabinet Ministers, Ministers of State, Whips and so on there can be, and it is my simple contention that if one wants to limit the number of Members and ensure that the proper legislative scrutiny function of this House is performed, one has to cut the number of Ministers.

[Chris Bryant]

That is right. If we really are to have new politics—that rather amorphous term to which the coalition agreement alludes—it must accept something that we the Opposition were too reluctant to accept when we sat on the Government Benches: that Parliament, when it is free to do its job, does its job better than when it is constrained.

The constraints are multiplying. The number of parliamentary secretaries is not quite growing daily, as the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle suggested. He made it sound as if they were breeding and reproducing. The number is not growing daily. However, it is certainly true—

[Sir Peter Tapsell]

I was talking about PPSs.

[Chris Bryant]

Ah! Parliamentary Private Secretaries. Indeed, I was going to come to the point about PPSs, because the hon. Member for Broxbourne was absolutely right to say that they are included in the ministerial code of conduct. It is a bit odd that a list of PPSs is still not available to the public. If one goes to the Cabinet Office website, one finds that the most recent list refers to July 2009. There is a list on conservativehome.com, which is a website that Government Members might consult sometimes, detailing 22 Parliamentary Private Secretaries, but as I understand it there are considerably more than that. The Government should be straight with the House and tell us precisely how many people are really on the payroll. By payroll, I do not mean that PPSs are in receipt of moneys.

The ministerial code of conduct, which incidentally every PPS should have been provided with and signed, although I suspect that most have not, makes it absolutely clear:

“Parliamentary Private Secretaries are expected to support the Government in important Divisions in the House. No Parliamentary Private Secretary who votes against the Government can retain his or her position.”

I say again that this House does its job as a reviewing, revising and legislative body when it is freest from the shackles of patronage, but with the numbers of Ministers and PPSs having grown, there is already an unnecessary constraint on the real power of this House to do its job.

We have talked about what happens on the Government Benches, but what also happens is that the Opposition feel that they have to match the ministerial team—and of course, the PPS team—man for man and woman for woman, so we end up not with 95 Ministers but 190. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) is saying from a sedentary position that Labour did the same—yes, and I have already said that we were too slow to accept these points. However, there is a big difference. He is supporting a Bill to remove 50 Members of Parliament while keeping the number of the Ministers the same, which means that Ministers will form a larger percentage of the House.

When one includes Ministers and PPSs on the Government side and their shadows on the Opposition side, one ends up with a large number of people who are not entirely free to speak their mind because they are bound by collective responsibility. There are many things to be said in favour of collective responsibility: nobody wants to be run by a shower who are completely and utterly unable to organise themselves and exercise some discipline. However, we also need a significant number of people on the Back Benches who are able to deliver their verdict on legislation and to vote at all times entirely with their conscience.