Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme) ((No. 3)

Richard Shepherd Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

I am very naive, because that is exactly what I believed. At that time, the hon. Gentleman would have gone through the same experience of the expenses scandal, when there was a real movement in the country for this place to change so that proper scrutiny would take place in this mother of Parliaments.

Previously, any scrutiny occurred down the corridor; we never got the chance to reach important clauses and amendments in Bills. We complained about that week in, week out. Yet here we are tonight having lost any debate whatsoever on really important clauses. Even when the situation was at its worst, under the Blair regime, I cannot remember anything being so dramatically curtailed. Why on earth could not the Leader of the House simply have said that we were going to have another day because of the Standing Order No. 24 debate? We could have extended tonight’s timetable by another three hours—that would have been sufficient—but given that that has not happened, the only way that we could, at the very last minute, come up with an acceptable, in-order amendment, was to say, “Deal with Leveson today and finish that at the time the Government suggested”, which will now be 10.44 pm, “and then move on to these important issues another day.” It is condescending to say that a few Members will be upset. It is not about a few Members being upset; these are really important issues that we should be debating as a House.

[Sir Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

What my hon. Friend says is true. He did not mention, but could easily have done so, that glorious sunlit day in Birmingham—perhaps he attended the party conference that year—when we were exhilarated to hear the then shadow Leader of the House give the greatest pleasure to us all when he announced that we would no longer automatically guillotine. That is the substance of the matter that has animated so many of us on the Government Back Benches. The deliberate intention not to debate things—to manipulate the order of play, so to speak, on the Floor of the House—deceives the public out there and corrupts the purpose of our being here.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend puts it far better than I do. Of course, I did rejoice at that. I went into the new coalition Government with a real feeling that we were going to be different—that things would change. Tonight we are taking a huge step backwards. As I said, I cannot recall any occasion on which an SO24 application has been granted and we therefore lose X amount of business that is not then rearranged.

Some cynical people—I am probably one of them—would say that this has suited the business managers enormously, because an amendment had been tabled that they did not want to debate. If I am wrong about that, it would be very simple for the Leader of the House to accept my amendment and we will see how well the Government respond to it.

The other problem is that this debate on the programme motion eats into the time that is allowed for debate on the substantive issues. That is a trick the previous Government introduced. We said it was wrong, but it is exactly what has happened tonight. The previous Leader of the House promised that we would not automatically programme business. This is the worst abuse that I have seen since becoming a Member of this House. I urge the Leader of the House, at this late stage, to show that he is a democratic champion of this House, to stick up for Back Benchers, not for the Executive, and to accept my amendment.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Richard Shepherd Excerpts

Wednesday 27th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

This is all about one group of people who live overseas and last registered here less than 15 years ago, who currently have the absolute right to register as overseas voters, compared with another class of overseas voters living abroad for more than 15 years since they last registered here. One has the absolute right to register; the other lot do not. It seemed to me to be an arbitrary cut-off date; as the noble and learned Lords I cited said, that seems quite wrong.

[Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentioned a category of British citizens who could not vote at all. Membership of the European Union clearly gives them rights to vote in local government elections—in Spain, France or wherever. They have the right to do so here. Another point arises from the debate about whether 15, 20 years or whatever is the appropriate period of time. We have arrangements that deny people the vote and deny them membership of the House of Lords, for example, if they are not resident here or do not pay taxes here. There comes a point at which a tax equation is relevant, along with the duties and responsibilities of being a British citizen. That is different from where someone has lost connection in many ways over a long period with his nationality, responsibilities, duties and allegiance to the Crown.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

My hon. Friend raises two issues. The first is whether British citizens are entitled to vote in EU local elections and European elections, as is the case in most European countries. The fact of the matter is that British citizens living overseas for more than 15 years since they last registered are not able to register here in order to vote in our general elections. Secondly, he says that these people have lost allegiance to the UK. I think that that is a slur on many of them. I think many people living abroad have a huge interest in what goes on in this country. I suspect that most of the voters who are unable to register still pay their taxes, or at least some part of them, to the UK. It seems to me that if the UK is prepared to take their taxes, why should they be denied a vote? I just cannot see the case for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

So we would still need to have a responsibility on overseas electors to register, rather than have the registration officer seek these people in order to enable them to be registered. Having said that, if we can find better and easier ways to enable that to happen, we should do so; the advent of IT processes may well do exactly that. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clause. He has made some very important points and I undertake that the Government will give them serious consideration. We will see whether there are proposals that we might wish to bring forward in due course to address some of his points.

[Mr Shepherd]

I support new clause 5. The reasoning behind it is clear and has been discussed over a long period. The fact is that we only have the right in this country to vote through our membership of the Commonwealth; we do not have the right to vote as British citizens. I do not intend to take up a great deal of time, because I appreciate that the debate is under considerable time pressure, but the question of the relationship between citizens’ rights and duties has become increasingly disconnected.

The history of our nationality laws goes back to a great and long imperial past, and each of our Representation of the People Acts has, in a sense, tried to catch up with the world as it is. We have no greater right than as a citizen of the Commonwealth, and I wanted to see on the face of a Bill—it has been suggested that this should happen—that a British citizen has a right to vote, and for that citizenship to be the category.

A Library note first gave me cause for concern, along with the response to a query from me about the House of Commons research paper that accompanies the Bill. That response from the Library concerned the question of the accuracy of the information presented to Members of Parliament. I make no criticism of the Library, as it is the finest resource and the most remarkable people are employed there. They often make a difference to the quality of our speech from the arguments we were originally able to articulate according to our own ability. The Library states:

“The Research Paper refers to ‘British Irish and qualifying Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK’ in order to explain the franchise arrangements succinctly. As we agree, the RPA 1983 refers to qualifying Commonwealth citizens and Irish citizens as being able to vote. I believe that most British citizens do not understand that they come under the term ‘Commonwealth citizens’. Other disqualifications are also relevant, such as meeting the residence requirements of the RPA, and ensuring that the prisoner disqualification does not apply. The Research Paper did not cover these in detail either.”

That is why the House does not necessarily know the background.

The debate has gone on for a long time. The arguments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) about the length of residency overseas that is necessary to maintain the vote here was a matter of considerable controversy in the 1980s, when those provisions were introduced. At that time, the Labour party was deeply concerned about the proposals on the false assumption, I think, that everyone who could afford to retire abroad or live for long periods in countries such as Spain would predominantly vote Conservative. That is perhaps why we have that mismatch. My experience of life is that one cannot necessarily tell how anyone will vote.

I want to commend the previous Prime Minister. I know that that is an unusual position for a Conservative and for many citizens, but he set in train the consideration of some of our Crown authority issues, such as passports and so on. He commissioned Lord Goldsmith to conduct a review of citizenship and its relationship to the vote. The review was called “Citizenship: Our Common Bond”. The anxiety with all this in relation to the Representation of the People Act 1983 is that citizenship is not necessarily a common bond any longer, as can be seen in some ways. People have dual nationalities that they can take on for whatever reason or convenience, so they can have British citizenship but no sense of allegiance to the institutions or the country. That is the way the world is going, with a divorcing of the relationship between loyalty, allegiance and a sense of pride in one’s country. As a country, we are one of the most fortunate in the world and there is an enormous sense of pride across all communities about being British. Our right to vote as citizens of Britain should be in legislation.

I note the remarks that two people have made about this issue. First, our spokesman in the Lords during the passage of the Representation of the People Act 2000, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, spoke to an amendment at Lords Committee stage to include the term “British citizen” in that legislation. He thought that should be set out clearly. I mention, in passing, that during the debate Lord Jopling suggested that if the UK were expelled from the Commonwealth there would be real problems with the wording in the legislation. That is a silly but technical point, in which there is truth. More importantly, Lord Goldsmith, in his report on citizenship, touched on the right to vote and recommended restricting the right to vote to UK citizens. These were his words:

“However, I do propose that government gives consideration to making a clear connection between citizenship and the right to vote by limiting in principle the right to vote in Westminster elections to UK citizens. This would recognise that the right to vote is one of the hallmarks of the political status of citizens; it is not a means of expressing closeness between countries. Ultimately, it is right in principle not to give the right to vote to citizens of other countries living in the UK until they become UK citizens.”

That is the argument behind this measure. It is an old argument and a new argument in the sense that people do not realise they have the vote only through their Commonwealth citizenship. I would like to see the measure in the Bill.

I know that the Government must think about this and that there would be consequences, but 800 million or 900 million Indian citizens, if they gained admission here—I do not think we could possibly take 800 million but if they did gain admission—would have the right to vote in British elections. I do not think that is right. This is a big and substantive issue that affects our relationships. Citizenship by birth or through the expression of allegiance, by wanting to be a citizen and acquiring citizenship, are justification for the vote. These arguments mirror those adopted elsewhere and in other countries. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look closely at this matter and see whether an amendment could be tabled in the House of Lords to support my new clause.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) addressed two factors in his remarks, the first of which was the extent of the franchise and the different categories of people who are allowed to vote in our UK parliamentary elections. Secondly, he addressed the definition in the Bill, which his new clause addresses, of whether it is an accurate description, rather than dealing with the qualification.

The Representation of the People Act 1983 sets out those who are entitled to vote in UK parliamentary elections as those who have attained the age of 18 and are Commonwealth citizens or citizens of the Republic of Ireland who are resident in the UK. In order to register, Commonwealth citizens must have leave to enter or remain in the UK, or not require such leave. I accept that is a historical anomaly, but it has been in place for many years and reflects our historical ties with Commonwealth countries. There are reciprocal arrangements with Ireland, as British citizens resident in the Republic of Ireland have been entitled to vote in elections to the Irish Parliament since 1985. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not enter into a debate about whether that franchise is right, because that does not relate to the purpose of new clause 5.

[Mr Shepherd]

I am trying to make the specific point that our Representation of the People Act does not include the phrase “British citizen”.

[Mr Heath]

Precisely so. The 1983 Act uses the term “Commonwealth citizen” and, by definition, while we remain part of the Commonwealth—I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about what would happen if we left the Commonwealth, but I do not think that that is expected in the near future—that includes every person who is a British citizen, a citizen of the British overseas territories, or a citizen of one of the Commonwealth countries listed in schedule 3 to the British Nationality Act 1981. People are therefore entitled to vote in this country as British citizens, but the term used in legislation is “Commonwealth citizen” because the franchise extends wider than just British citizens and citizens of British overseas territories.

I think that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that new clause 5 would have no practical effect on the franchise, but it would be a declaratory provision setting out that the right to vote in an election in this country is conferred by virtue of being a British citizen, and that that right is extended to Commonwealth citizens. It would therefore make a distinction between the two.

[Mr Shepherd]

What other democracies in the world do not designate their citizens as having the right to vote? Does not the Minister find it extraordinary that, of all the countries in the world, we are the one with a mechanism under which people have the right to vote only by virtue of membership of an international organisation, the policies of which we have no control over?

[Mr Heath]

We are not entitled to vote only through Commonwealth membership. We are entitled to vote as British citizens. British citizens are Commonwealth citizens, and that is why the legislation is drafted in such terms. I understand why the hon. Gentleman feels that it is important to make such a distinction, because I would hope that those of us who hold British citizenship are proud to do so. I am also proud to be part of the Commonwealth, which reflects the great history of our nation, and our electoral law takes account of that.

There are aspects of British electoral law in which such a distinction is necessary, and therefore is specifically stated, because an entitlement is restricted to British citizens. For example, the Representation of the People Act 1985 sets out that only British citizens are entitled to register as overseas electors. When the distinction is necessary in legislation, it is made. While I understand the intention behind new clause 5, it is not necessary to change the construction of our electoral law in such a way. I fear that if it were enacted, it would introduce a potential inconsistency with other legislation which uses the phrase “Commonwealth citizen” to include British citizens and other Commonwealth citizens.

However, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point and I will go away and consider it further to see whether there is a useful distinction that ought to be made in our legislation. I hope he will not press the new clause today, although it is useful for him to have raised the issue. Perhaps we should at some stage address the question of whether that distinction should be made. Perhaps we should at some stage also look at the franchise, but now is not the right time and the Bill is not the right place to do that. Nevertheless, he is perfectly entitled to raise the point today.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Richard Shepherd Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Allen]

At the risk of summoning the ghost of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), the hon. Gentleman makes that point far more articulately, and perhaps more often, than I do. If we can persuade people to vote because they have got this message clearly from the panoply of paperwork that we send out to get them to register, then that in itself is a good thing, and it will mean that the threat of deploying a fine is not acted on.

As the Minister said, members of the Select Committee are trying to be as good as we can in giving the Committee an explanatory statement of the amendments so that Members can wander into the debate and know exactly what we are talking. The statement is straightforward. We hope that the deterrent would be used only very sparingly and rarely, if ever, but it says, in effect, that the concept of registering to vote is not about marketisation or convenience but about values—the values of which we in this place must be the guardians at every conceivable opportunity. The amendment is about the right of every qualified individual in this country to vote for the governance of their choice, and we believe that it would safeguard and extend the possibility of all of us enjoying that right.

[Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

The burden of the argument in the earlier part of the speech by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) seemed to be that there should be a fine for not voting. If I have misunderstood that, I apologise.

In the long history of these islands, people have sought to accomplish the very thing that we represent here—a representative democracy that is their check on autocratic government and all the things that go with it. I profoundly believe in exercising the right to vote. I have never not voted, with the exception of the time when I was abroad as a student, when it was not possible to vote as such a person. However, I also believe that with a sense of liberty goes the right not to vote. This is a clear choice of citizens. When I first stood for election during the 1980s, most of the polls in my area, which is in the west midlands and is not the wealthiest of regions any more, we had turnouts of between 79% and 81%. As we know, the collection of data for the electoral register—the very thing that we are talking about—is under-recording numbers because of movements or deaths. Therefore, 79% to 81% is a very good turnout. Only in the most recent years has the turnout collapsed. Who is to say why?

[Mr Allen]

May I reassure the hon. Gentleman, whose record is second to none in this House in the service of democracy, that nothing in my amendment indicates that someone should be fined for not voting? The sanction would apply to people who do not register and should apply only in rare cases as a way of encouraging individuals to get on the register. People may then choose to not vote, to spoil their ballot paper or to vote for the party of their choice.

[Mr Shepherd]

I stand for a complete register. I do not know that I would go as far as to force people to register, unless it was for census purposes. I see the failure of the census as often as not.

[Ian Mearns]

Will the hon. Gentleman muse on the new Boundary Commission rule that a minimum number of electors has to be found in a ward, and that if the number is even one short, a whole other electoral ward must be brought in to make the constituency up to the correct size? We could therefore have a situation in which that happens because of the non-registration of one person. That is how the rules are written, as I understand them. In that scenario, the registration of one voter becomes vital.

[Mr Shepherd]

I would think that the truth of the matter is that the rough must be taken with the smooth. It is the particularisation that I do not like.

I agree that having a correct census is fundamental to a democracy, and yet that is not universal. There are not many fines in relation to the census and we still do not have a complete one. However, I am very cautious about the idea of forcing anyone to do anything in their relationship with the democratic process, whether it is voting for parties or anything else. Australia has a fine for not voting, in theory, but I do not think that that is appropriate for us. It would be an inhibition on liberty. If I do not wish to be part of a process, as a free-born Briton, surely I have that right. That is the essence of what being British was about once upon a time.

I am not going to get excited, because I have been here a long time and I have heard all the passing nostrums. I am not saying that this is a nostrum, because the hon. Member for Nottingham North is trying to address a genuine worry; I do not doubt that. However, I have the sense that I am free born and that I may do what I wish, with my view of public officials, because that is entirely a matter for me, and that I should not be required to register with the possibility of a penalty if I do not vote. That seems to me to be the other side of the coin to liberty.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

To follow on from the point that has just been made, I believe that in a democracy everybody should be able to choose whether to exercise their right to vote, but to do that they have to be on the register. That is what this debate is about. People must be on the register so that they are able to choose whether to vote in an election.

The Government are committed to continuing with the fine under the current legislation of £1,000 for households that refuse to co-operate with the electoral registration officer. However, they have had second thoughts on whether it is appropriate to introduce a fine or civil penalty for individuals who refuse to co-operate.

Like other hon. Members, I welcome that change, because initially the Government suggested in the draft Bill that registration would be a matter of personal choice. Many argued that to register is a civic duty and responsibility, and that there should be a civil penalty attached for individuals who do not co-operate.

I also welcome the fact that the Government intend to use the fine sparingly. Their impact assessment states:

“Currently the criminal offence of not responding to a household registration form is used to encourage compliance and thus maintain the completeness of the electoral register. It is sparsely applied in practice and 150 prosecutions are actually initiated annually. It is intended that the new civil penalty will be used in the same way thus the propensity to issue fines should not increase,”

which is perfectly reasonable. The important thing is the declaration—I take the point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on that. It is important to make such a stipulation prominent, so that people are aware of their responsibility. The threat—the incentive—to comply is important, not the penalty.

Backbench Business Committee

Richard Shepherd Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I recall that the Leader of the House was one of the most eloquent advocates of Dr Tony Wright’s proposed reforms in this area. I also remember a famous conference speech in which he said that we would not resort to guillotines in the manner that had happened in the past. I also remember that when I was a student, the constitutional writers of the time used to discuss and describe the role and function of the Leader of the House. Fifty years ago they would argue that it was the most important role in the management of the House of Commons. The Leader of the House brought the views of the House to the Government and would try and influence them in the interests of the House and in the interests of the Government. It is a divided position; it is not an easy one. Yet here we see on the Order Paper, in the name of the Leader of the House, a motion that clearly has not been the result of any form of consultation, but has come from the very bowels of Government to assert their own primacy yet again.

The debate is about the Backbench Business Committee. This is Back-Bench business, in a sense, yet we know the apparatus, as has been described by many Conservative Members, through which the motion has come about. It is not to the credit of the Leader of the House that his name is the first of the proposers.

The reforms have not been bad. They have been rather successful, and maybe it is their success that arouses fear. After all, we had a debate on a referendum. That is something that no Government—Labour or the present Government—would have tabled. We were able to discuss matters on which debate had been denied to Members for a very long time. I support much of the work of the Backbench Business Committee. It is essential that it carries on in future. I have always supported—

Business of the House

Richard Shepherd Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

The point that has just been made is extremely important. It is richly ironic that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was parading in front of us today expressing concern that there is a guillotine on House business. This was, of course, a long-echoed and genuine call made by many Conservative Members in the previous Parliament, and one that I have made in respect of not only House business, but all business for 25 years. So consistency is certainly not behind the hon. Gentleman, but he did make some fine points. I feel strongly that the way of these guillotine motions, which I had hoped would not be in the locker of the coalition in this way, on House business, is wrong. One of the constant irritations in having so many motions grouped together in this way and then having a vote at the end is it results in our having a general debate that has no coherency in the thread of what we are debating. This is a poor business motion because as each of the motions comes to be voted on after 9.30 pm we will have lost where we stood in the arguments—this is a muddle. A typical trick of past judgments was to muddle all this up, so that no theme and no argument is consistent, necessarily, with the business as we vote upon it.

[Barbara Keeley]

That is part of the point that I was making. A discourtesy was shown to the Opposition because the motion was not shared with us. I would have expected our main debate to be segmented. In the past, if we were considering several House business motions, we would have given an hour on one, and perhaps taken two motions for an hour and half—[Hon. Members: “No.”] That is the case; I remember it happening. If there had been any discussions with us, we could have suggested such an approach.

[Mr Shepherd]

Of course the hon. Lady could have held discussions. I know that those on the Government Front Bench are open to discussions, and if the hon. Lady had thought that her point was genuine—I accept that it must be, given that it is the point that I am arguing—she could no doubt have spoken to them. She represents a significant party in this country.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I would not refer to the hon. Gentleman as a constant irritant; his approach on such matters is obviously consistent. However, if the motion is pressed to a Division, will he vote against it? Will he also consistently speak against programming, as he has done since I have been a Member?

[Mr Shepherd]

I will vote as I have always voted on these matters. However, given the temper of new Labour’s opposition, as on identity cards, I rather suspect that there will not be a vote, but I am prepared to toss a coin and do my duty.

The Deputy Leader of the House has made all the arguments that I am setting out on previous occasions, so I am surprised that he has acceded to the motion. I am making an important point about the segmentation of debate. The approach proposed in the motion causes confusion. Many Members with a terrific interest in a particular motion that we will consider will be drifting around. The approach makes it easy for people to desert the Chamber to go off across London, and to return only at 9.30 pm to become part of the machine that will roll the proposals through.

The hon. Member for North Durham has a point in that we rarely discuss such matters and the House has a record of constantly using the power of a majority to get this sort of proposal through. He made the good point that about a third of hon. Members—certainly more than 100—are new Members who have never been party to such discussions. The changes that we will consider are important. I support almost all of them, although my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) made a point that must be addressed. If our debate was segmented, his well-made point would command our attention and we would see how wrong it is to exclude properly elected Members of Parliament for distinctive parts of the United Kingdom from having representation on Committees that are of importance to the House, and whose importance is intended to be reinforced by the very measures that we will consider.

This business of the House motion is poor, so if it is pressed to a Division, I shall think carefully about what to do.