Public Disorder

Philip Davies Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We want to see them in the right place, properly regulated, and that may well mean more of them.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Can the Prime Minister tell the House how many people have been charged under part I, section 1 of the Public Order Act 1986 with the specific offence of riot, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison? Does he agree that that would result in people being given the sort of sentences that the public demand, and will he make sure that the CPS does not undercharge people to get convictions, which will end in people getting lighter sentences that they deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

I cannot give my hon. Friend figures on which specific part of the Public Order Act people have been charged under, because, as he will know, that Act, which has really stood the test of time, has many parts under which charges can be laid. The latest figures that I have state that, in London alone, 880 people have been arrested and more than 370 have already been charged.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Philip Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My answer to the hon. Gentleman is yes. Which Government set up a judicial inquiry? This one. Which Government made sure that there is a fully resourced and staffed police investigation? This one. Which Government are being totally transparent about their conduct and contacts with the media and asking others to do the same? That is what this Government have done. For 13 years, his Government had all those opportunities and failed to take them.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that in the past when the House of Commons has been faced with big issues it has had a tendency towards knee-jerk over-reactions? Does he agree that newspapers are a force for good in this country and that what we want at the end of this process is criminality weeded out of the media but for nothing to impinge on a free press, free speech and holding people in authority to account?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. We need to ensure that as a House of Commons, as a Government and as an Opposition we show an element of restraint in the debate we have about the regulation of the media. There is always a danger that the pendulum can swing too far the other way and we can start to threaten investigative journalism and a strong and independent media that can call Government to account. When we consider some of the scandals that have been uncovered in recent years, we can see that it has often been the press who have done it and not the regulators. I am sure we will come on to this in our debate later, but it is absolutely vital we maintain that British tradition.

Prisoners (Voting Rights)

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Her constituents and mine will be sickened if rapists are given the right to vote. It is shocking how many prisoners would be entitled to vote if the Government’s proposals were to go through. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm the present number of people serving time in prison. Statistics that, again, were sneaked out just before the recess, show that there are 28,770 prisoners serving sentences of less than four years, of whom 5,991 have been convicted of violence against the person, 1,753 of sexual offences, 2,486 of robbery, 4,188 of burglary and 4,370 of drug offences. If the Government were, for example, to restrict the limit to sentences of one year or less, the number of prisoners who would be enfranchised would go down from 28,770 to 8,096.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Those figures are startling, but does my hon. Friend agree that all the people represented in the numbers he quoted have not had the vote taken from them—they have removed it from themselves by committing the crimes that led to their ending up in prison? If voting is so important to them, there is presumably an easy way out: they should not commit the crimes that get them sentenced to prison.

[Mr Hollobone]

As always, my hon. Friend speaks not only for his constituents but for Britain. Lots of people would agree with him. As his local police commander will have said—and as mine has said—“Philip, everyone we catch and convict is a volunteer.” No one is forced to go to prison for committing offences. Indeed, it is difficult to go to prison nowadays, under the liberal criminal justice regime that the coalition Government are starting to pursue.

There are therefore a number of ways in which the Government can respond to the European Court ruling, other than just caving in with the four-year rule. Primarily we need a proper parliamentary debate on the issue, so that colleagues can debate the pros and cons and be given the opportunity to vote to maintain the status quo. That would satisfy the European Court’s judgment that Parliament has not debated the issue. I hope that the Government will think hard about putting that before the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this debate. It has generated more interest in Westminster Hall than other debates that I have attended. I congratulate also the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). She said that she felt rather vulnerable taking part in the debate, but at least she positioned herself strategically with no one sitting behind her.

Some Members will acknowledge that an announcement was unavoidable because the Minister had been put in a position in which he had no alternative. Others, however, will argue that he could have disregarded the ruling. I should be interested to know whether a majority of Members present think that we should abide by the law and the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, which clearly stated that the Government had to address the question.

The Government have known about the problem for a long time. Since 2004, we knew that the Government—any Government—would have to deal with it sooner or later. The previous Government found some imaginative ways to postpone taking a decision or responding to something that they knew was coming down the track, given the consultations that they launched and their unwillingness to take action.

During his speech, the hon. Member for Kettering was asked to confirm when the blanket ban came into place. As he said, it came about under the Forfeiture Act 1870. He deployed the argument that the Government and Members of Parliament clearly debated the matter in 1870. I do not know whether he thinks that once in every 140 years is appropriate, or whether those 140 years have brought about a change in the way in which Parliament and society should operate.

[Philip Davies]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that in those 140 years, there has been ample opportunity for Governments to change the status quo? The fact that change has not been debated is a fair indication that the will of the House—and of the public—in those intervening years was not to change it. It has been within Parliament’s gift to change over for the past 140 years if it had so wished, but it did not so wish.

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. That is why I support the call for Parliament to debate the matter, and we are starting that process today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

First, I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on bringing this issue to Parliament and I hope that there will be a debate on it in the main Chamber too. I agree with him that we are the people who should make decisions. Secondly, I want to thank him for his kind words about my new year honour; in thirty years’ time, I hope to be here to congratulate him on achieving the same thing. [Laughter.]

If I may, I do not plan to give way because there are two quotations that I want to give before developing one or two arguments of my own. The first quotation is from a Home Secretary:

“The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country. A calm and dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused against the State, and even those of convicted criminals against the State, a constant heart searching by all charged with the duty of punishment, a desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment, tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerating processes, and an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man—these are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals mark and measure the stored up strength of a nation and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it.”—[Official Report, 20 July 1910; Vol. 19, c. 1354.]

That Home Secretary was Winston Churchill, speaking in the Commons in 1910.

The second quotation comes from an American judge, so some of the expressions that he uses and some of the experiences that he refers to may not be identical to those in this country. He is Judge Dennis Challeen, and he is quoted in a document called “Making It Right” that was published in 1986, talking about prisoners:

“We want them to have self-worth...

So we destroy their self-worth.

We want them to be responsible...

So we take away all responsibilities.

We want them to be part of our community...

So we isolate them from our community.

We want them to be positive and constructive...

So we degrade them and make them useless.

We want them to be non-violent...

So we put them where there is violence all around them.

We want them to be kind and loving people...

So we subject them to hatred and cruelty.

We want them to quit being the tough guy...

So we put them where the tough guy is respected.

We want them to quit hanging around losers...

So we put all the “losers” in the state under one roof.

We want them to quit exploiting us...

We put them where they exploit each other.

We want them to take control of their own lives, own their own problems,

and quit being a parasite ...

So we make them totally dependent on us.”

I hope that the future debates that we have in this House will not be about the effect of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and I do not actually want them to be about the European convention on human rights. The issue is not whether we join the Court; it is whether we think that the points put in the European convention on human rights by people in this country are points to which we want to adhere.

To my mind, the dominant issue is how we got into this pickle in the first place. The Forfeiture Act 1870 lifted a lot of the problems of people who are convicted; it stopped all their land and property being taken away, and it stopped their wives and children from becoming dependent on the state. It happened to include, under the heading of “treason” in section 2:

“If any person hereafter convicted of treason…”

should be disqualified from

“being elected, or sitting, or voting as a member of either House of Parliament, or of exercising any right of suffrage or other parliamentary or municipal franchise whatever within England, Wales, or Ireland.”

Incidentally, this measure did not apply to Scotland so the idea that there is United Kingdom symmetry on this issue is not right.

When I was allowed to intervene on one of my hon. Friends—my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake)—I referred to the part of the Act that came from the modification in the 1960s. Following a criminal law review process, from 1967 prisoners were able to vote.

[Philip Davies]

Not these ones.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Prisoners were able to vote.

[Philip Davies]

Not these ones.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I said that I was not planning to take any interventions; that applies whether they are made from a sedentary position and repeated, or made by a Member who is standing up and said for the first time. [Laughter.]

As it happened, in the mid-1960s, unless someone had established a proxy beforehand, I do not think that there were provisions for establishing proxies or for voting by post, so that is a change. Nevertheless, that modification takes away one of the difficulties of how voting by prisoners could be arranged now.

I want to put a question to my hon. Friend the Minister; if he does not know the answer now, I will be very happy to receive it in a letter later on. Is there a duty at present to register prisoners to vote, until we change the registration laws to enable individual registration, and even then does that duty apply? Indeed, one question is about whether people can vote; the second question is whether they appear on the register, whether they are qualified or disqualified. I would be very grateful to know from the lawyers in the Minister’s Department, or through him from the lawyers, whether there is presently a requirement on a prison governor to register a prisoner on the electoral register and, if so, whether that prisoner is registered as being disqualified from voting in the prison or disqualified from voting from what would have been their normal address, as it were, if they were, say, an overseas elector.

The second question is about voting itself. I hope that the future debates that we have on this subject are about why it is an extra punishment or provision that someone who is convicted and then, as part of their sentence, has their liberty taken away, has their right to vote taken away as well. I am not terribly interested at the moment about the boundary problem or whether there should be a bar for those sentenced to more than four years or for those convicted of certain offences; I think that that is a subsidiary set of issues. I believe that the key point is whether we can actually say to people who are convicted, “We want to take away your liberty, but we want you to be a member of society”. That is the essential issue. That is why we try to teach people in prison to read, to work and to be interested in things around them, and why we want them to have some sympathy and empathy for the feelings of others, whether victims or otherwise.

I end by asking a question that most people do not ask themselves. Each week, how many people in this country commit a serious criminal offence for the first time, one for which if they are caught and convicted they could be sent to jail for six months or more? I will give way just once to anybody who can give me the answer.

One would have thought that, dealing with crime and punishment, we would all be interested in knowing the answer to that question. The figure is about 1,800 people a week, who are mostly male and under the age of 30, who for the first time are convicted of an offence for which they could be sent to jail for six months or more. So the figure is presumably above 1,800 a week. A third of all men under the age of 30 have been convicted of an offence for which they could be sent to jail for six months or more. I think that the fact that most of the dispositions are not to send those men to jail is a good thing, although some of my hon. Friends and others in other parties might disagree. I think that we are talking about something that is rather common, and the provisions for allowing prisoners to vote are entirely separate from the issue of how we reduce the number of criminals.

Having said that I would end, I will say it again. When I was Minister with responsibility for painting white lines in the middle of roads, which is quite a dangerous position, rather like my position in this debate, it was estimated that young men drove cars after having consumed more than the legal limit for alcohol—which was a socially acceptable, body-bending, illegal habit— 2 million times a week. Within 2.5 years, that figure appeared to have decreased to 600,000. We cut that crime, which killed 1,200 people a year, by two thirds in 2.5 years with no change in law, sentencing or enforcement.

If we are seriously interested in reducing the number of victims, which is why we are interested in reducing crime, and in having fewer criminals, the way to do it is not by having long arguments about whether to give prisoners the vote; I would vote to do so straight away. I would also try to spend more time on effective reduction of the amount of crime in this country. I hope that this debate will be one of the first steps to doing so.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) in this debate. I congratulate him on his knighthood. Perhaps one reason why he got it is that he is an independent Member of Parliament who has always been willing to go against the popular tide. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on introducing this important debate. I must say that I am on his side on this issue.

I am aware that the winding-up speeches will start in nine minutes’ time, so I will be extremely brief. Three members of the Backbench Business Committee are in the Chamber today, as are 24 coalition Members and a number of Members from Her Majesty’s Opposition. It is wholly inappropriate that this issue should be left to a Westminster Hall debate, as Members speaking on all sides of the argument have said, so I will not discuss the issue itself, as it should be debated in the main Chamber under a substantive motion. I urge hon. Members to go along to the public sitting of the Backbench Business Committee next Tuesday and argue the case for having this debate in the main Chamber on a substantive motion.

The only thing that I will say on the issue is this. We have discussed the coalition Government’s four-year rule. It is a classic case of the Government saying something and then caving in later—by reducing it to a year, for example—and saying, “There we are; we’ve listened to Back-Bench Members of Parliament, and we’re complying.” To me, the issue is straightforward: either no prisoners should have the vote, or all prisoners should. The arguments are clear. It either is or is not a good thing for society that prisoners should have the vote. If it is a bad thing, then no prisoners should have the vote; I take that view. The other, crucial matter is parliamentary sovereignty and who decides the laws of this country. That issue must be developed in much greater depth during a longer debate.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend says that the Government have gone too far in order to be seen to be scaling back. Is not the other alternative that they have gone so far as a sop to our coalition partners? Does my hon. Friend agree that if that is the case, the Government have forgotten once again that they are in coalition with the Conservatives as well as the Liberal Democrats? It is rather ungrateful of the Liberal Democrats that only one has bothered to appear to support the Government’s sop to them.

[Mr Bone]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. There may well be some truth behind it. I will conclude so that other Members can speak. Again, I hope that hon. Members will go along on Tuesday and urge the Backbench Business Committee to hold a debate on this subject in the main Chamber.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Whether people are entitled to vote should not in principle depend on whether they exercise that right. One can accept the principle that people should be entitled to vote at certain ages, without making that entitlement contingent on their exercising it.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that there is something slightly irrational about those who, in the previous Parliament, thought that we should increase the age at which people are allowed to smoke from 16 to 18, but who now think that 16-year-olds have the right level of responsibility for the voting age to be reduced from 18 to 16?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I certainly agree—[Interruption.]

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I said that it was undesirable, and I believe that it is undesirable. I said that in the last Parliament. I called for Secretaries of State in another place to be brought before this House for questioning, because I think it is wrong for Members of the House of Commons not to have access to those who lead Departments. That remains my position, and I am not going to change it.

[Philip Davies]

I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman’s argument. Is he saying that the new clause means that any Secretary of State could not be in the House of Commons, and would have to be in the House of Lords? I see nothing in the new clause that would force a Secretary of State to be in the House of Lords.

[Mr Heath]

I am not suggesting that that would be the case. I am picking up on points made during the debate, which I think is part of the job of a Minister responding to a debate. The hon. Member for Foyle expressed the hope that a reduction in the number of Ministers in the House of Commons would not result in an increase in the number of Ministers in the House of Lords. I suggested that I agreed with his view. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex does not agree with it. So be it. That is the nature of debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

As I shall go on to describe, what the previous Government did when they reached the buffers of the current restrictions was simply to create all sorts of fantastical posts that were not described as “Ministers” but were, nevertheless, an extension of patronage. We know what the Labour party did when in government and I think we can do better.

[Philip Davies]

The Minister seems to be saying that these things should be judged on the ministerial work load, as opposed to numbers. I do not know whether this is the case for him and his constituency, but the work load of MPs has increased rapidly in recent years. The Government are proposing to reduce the number of MPs by 50, so this Bill clearly has nothing to do with work load, yet he is giving the distinct impression that this is a simple case of turkeys not wanting to vote for Christmas.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think that that issue was fully raised by Channel 4, and fully answered by the Government. Everyone should obey the law; everyone should pay their taxes.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Q9. Despite the Prime Minister’s earlier answers, can I tell him that at a time when we are cutting budgets in this country, it is absolutely unacceptable that the Government rubber-stamped an increase in the budget of the European Union? Given that he pledged at the general election that only two budgets would be ring-fenced—those for the health service and overseas aid—will the Government go to the European Union and say that we are not only talking about freezing the budget, but want it to take the pain and cut its budget?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but the fact is that we opposed the increase in the budget that he voted against the other night, and will go on opposing increases in the budget. The key is the next financial perspective: that is the best way in which to control the budget. We need to build allies for that, we need to build our argument for that, and we need to make sure that Europe starts to live within its means.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

I greatly admire my hon. Friend’s perspicacity. He puts his finger on an important point—the context in which these events take place. This is about whether or not, in relation to a matter of such importance as the issue of alternative vote, we end up with a decision which could be on a knife-edge and which is decided merely on the basis of what an officer thinks.

I do not know about hon. Gentlemen in the Committee at large, but sometimes I do not have that much faith in bureaucratic thinking; in fact, I have a strong aversion to it. But if the measure were to say, “In the opinion of the officer,” we would at least know that we were on what I would describe as generally understood judicial ground. The measure does not provide for that, however; it provides for the question of what is in his mind, not his opinion, and there is a very big and important distinction to be drawn between those two things. My hon. Friend is entirely right in believing that there ought to be a context and some criteria.

Furthermore, the measure includes the wording,

“if the officer thinks”—

whatever that means—

“that there is reason to doubt the accuracy of the counting of the votes in the counting officer’s voting area”.

What is or is not reasonable is, again, a question that the courts are well used to determining. There is a whole stream of case law, which I am quite capable of spending some time describing, on the question of what is or is not reasonable, and for that matter what is or is not practicable. I am afraid to say, however, that when the Bill simply states,

“only if the officer thinks that there is reason to doubt”,

it applies yet another spurious objective test, which is actually highly subjective, and that is not the way to legislate.

We want clarity and impartiality, and to be sure that, if there is a knife-edge vote, there will not be some unfortunate mistake in the mind of the officer—and I shall make no mistake whatever about what I say this evening.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very compelling case, as usual. Does he not agree that this is an open and shut case? Owing to the way in which the measure is worded, if the chief counting officer, or the regional counting officer, thinks that there is a reason to doubt the accuracy of the count, he “may” give a direction for a recount. Surely, if a returning officer has reason to believe that the count is not accurate, it is an open and shut case. Surely, it is the duty of the returning officer that they must order a recount in those circumstances.

[Mr Cash]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend, with again the greatest perspicacity and accuracy, has put his finger on the complete absurdity of the Government’s chosen language. Let us be quite serious for a moment—I am trying to be serious the whole time—because the fact is that in legislation of this importance, and in the circumstances of a knife-edge vote, we are allowing a situation in which, if the counting officer “thinks” that there is a reason, he only sort of has to think about whether or not he might or he might not decide to order a recount. However, as my hon. Friend says, it is absolutely crystal clear in the circumstances to which he refers that it is not possible for the officer to give a direction other than on a mandatory basis, which is what “must” actually means.

[Philip Davies]

I obviously agree, but does my hon. Friend agree that his proposal would actually benefit counting officers and returning officers? In a situation where people have been up late at night, they are tired and it is not clear whether people want to have a recount, making the position abundantly clear in the legislation would be of great help to a returning officer, who would then not be under any pressure not to undertake a recount.

[Mr Cash]

Given the seriousness of the situation that we face this evening, for example, it would be intolerable to keep people up late for no useful purpose. That is precisely why I am making these very useful comments—to ensure that what happens is in line with the proper principles of administrative law.

On the next provision, which is amendment 154, there are a number of other extremely important matters that are of grave concern. That is so important that hon. Members have devised a special provision—not merely an amendment of the kind that I have described but the very well-thought-out separate paragraph (4A), which says:

“If the difference between the total number of votes cast in the referendum in the country in favour of the answer “Yes” and the total number of votes cast in the referendum in the country in favour of the answer “No”—

this is crucially important—

“is fewer than 10,000”—

Political and Constitutional Reform

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

It is within the gift of this Government to make the proposal and to come to this House first with the announcement. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways; he cannot criticise us for talking to others outside the House when in fact this time we are doing what he and his Labour colleagues have been saying for weeks—that we should come to this House. That is what we have done and that is the right way to proceed.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Deputy Prime Minister wants to hold a referendum to change the voting system and make a coalition Government more likely in future. Why does he not think that it is worth letting people see for much longer what a coalition Government look like, so that they can make an informed choice on the voting system rather than having the decision thrust on them so quickly? Why the rush?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

By the time the referendum is held, people will have had a whole year; I suggest that that is long enough for them to make a judgment, even if my hon. Friend has made an instant judgment himself.

G8 and G20 Summits

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I know that the hon. Gentleman missed the previous Parliament, but he could have read about some of the things that took place. During that Parliament, we argued for the introduction of a banking levy even if others did not follow suit. The position of the Labour party, although I am sure that it is changing by the minute, was that, under the great disappeared—the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)—we had to wait for full agreement from every single country in the world. That was not our policy. We have introduced a banking levy, and quite rightly too.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I urge caution on my right hon. Friend when it comes to Turkey’s membership of the European Union? Unless we have already left the EU by that stage—I can but hope—Turkey’s membership could lead only to the British taxpayer being asked to put his hand further in his pocket and further strain on immigration into this country.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Not complete agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome yesterday’s announcements. There is no plan to regionalise corporation tax further in the United Kingdom, but I am sure that yesterday’s announcements will offer a major boost to the Welsh economy.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

2. What recent discussions she has had with the First Minister on the proposed referendum on the law-making powers of the National Assembly for Wales.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

8. What recent discussions she has had with the First Minister on the proposed referendum on law-making powers of the National Assembly for Wales.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)]

May I also echo the words of my hon. Friend in recognising the tremendous work that the right hon. Lord Walker of Worcester did in this House as one of my predecessors as Secretary of State for Wales from 1987 to 1990? I am sure that all our thoughts are with his family at this sad time.

I have had regular discussions with the First Minister on the proposed referendum on the law-making powers of the National Assembly for Wales.

[Philip Davies]

Given that so few people in Wales actively voted for the National Assembly in the first place, will my right hon. Friend consider having a turnout threshold for any referendum on whether to give the Assembly more powers so that at least a respectable number of people vote before we make any constitutional changes?

[Mrs Gillan]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware of it, but there was a threshold of 40% for the previous referendum. I am afraid to tell the House, however, that I am bound by the Government of Wales Act 2006, in accordance with which there is no threshold, but a simple majority. It is therefore important, I believe, that the electorate in Wales uses its right to vote on an important issue. I hope that when the referendum is run, they will turn out in numbers.