Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Debate between Robert Goodwill and Jackie Doyle-Price

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

First, may I put on the record how much I welcome the Bill? Indeed, having served on the Joint Committee chaired so ably by the noble Lord McLoughlin, who has gone on from a distinguished career in this House to—I hope—even greater things in the other place, I can probably own up to knowing more about the constitutional convolution surrounding this subject than it is healthy for any person to know, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).



I was slightly confused by the points made by the shadow Minister, as Labour has a manifesto commitment to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. I am not sure whether we will see some backtracking on that. I was also confused when she said that the Prime Minister of the day could take the opportunity of the Opposition being in disarray to call a general election. I have to say that I could probably pick any day in the past five years, and no doubt in the next four years, when that particular situation could be in force.

When we started out on this journey, I took the view that we should go as far as possible to restore the situation to as it existed before the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. At the end of our deliberations, I remained of the same view, but we all came to understand better the historical and constitutional context. It is important that we restore the royal prerogative. Less important is the academic discussion about whether it was merely in abeyance and could be restored or had been abolished. The Lascelles principles were discussed: the reasons why the King or Queen could refuse the initiative from No. 10 and, of course, the discretion around a request—or is that advice?—to Her Majesty. Indeed the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) talked about whether the Lascelles principles would still be in place. We learned about the golden triangle—the communications between the Queen’s private secretary, the Cabinet Secretary and the Prime Minister’s private secretary—who would head off an embarrassing situation for the monarch who might have to turn down an election because it was too soon after the previous election, because an alternative Government could be formed, or because other situations might mean that it was inappropriate to call that particular election.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

To emphasise the point that my right hon. Friend has just made, the truth is not that a monarch would never be put in a position where she had to say no, but that what happens in our constitution means that that question is never put until it is an acceptable time for a general election. Putting it in rules in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act got in the way of a functioning electoral democracy.

[Mr Goodwill]

That is right. I am a big subscriber to the view that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The situation that we had worked for many years—during constitutional crises, world wars and great political events in this country. The people of this country have a great regard for Her Majesty the Queen, and I feel that if anyone was going to be put in that position, she is probably the best person—with advice from those around her, including the golden triangle, to make that decision.

Having been a member of the coalition Government, I have to say that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act worked well during the coalition period, steadying the nerves of our Liberal Democrat partners against a snap election. If the same situation were to happen again—perhaps a Labour-SNP coalition, but probably not any time soon—it could be dusted off again. I am not sure whether those two coalition partners would make very good bedfellows—certainly the image of Morecambe and Wise sat reading their bedtime books does not spring to mind, but who knows what might happen at some point in the future.

In the meantime, this Bill restores the situation as it was before 2020. It is a procedure that has stood the test of time and, most importantly, cannot be challenged in the courts. Let us remember the autumn of 2019 when, three times, Labour proved that it was frightened of the electorate and did not give the two-thirds majority for an election. Indeed, in December 2019, we discovered precisely why it was frightened of the electorate; it was brought to book by the electorate for ignoring them since the referendum decision was made. Hence I very much support the need for the ouster clause in clause 3, which ensures the belt and braces situation to which the Secretary of State referred.

Finally, there is one improvement that we should consider either for this Bill or for the forthcoming elections Bill. Currently, when an election is called after the customary wash-up, we have an election campaign that lasts 25 working days. With weekends and bank holidays, that means that we have more than 35 full days on the campaign trail. That is far too long. My view is that a campaign of that length is more likely to turn off voters than to motivate them—I suspect that Brenda from Bristol would agree with me.

I know that the returning officers will have all sorts of reasons why they need more time, and no doubt the party campaign managers will say that they do not have enough time to organise their campaigns. I know that the situation is different with overseas and more postal voters, but surely there are technical solutions to those issues. Perhaps, once every four of five years, our hard-working council officials could do some overtime at weekends if necessary. Let us have a 25-day election campaign and not a 25 working day election campaign.

Elections never used to be this long. Many people have already decided how they will vote. We should minimise the time for which the Government are possibly hamstrung during an election and cannot be scrutinised or challenged by Parliament. I welcome the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, but look forward to provisions to fix the length of the election at 25 days only.

Lower Thames Crossing

Debate between Robert Goodwill and Jackie Doyle-Price

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He is getting to the nub of the issue for myself and my hon. Friends who are here today, namely that the crossing is the only link between Kent and Essex and the only link that connects up our ports. As the only crossing east of London, it is the only show in town when there is disruption, and that is why we need something else to build resilience into the system.

[Mr Goodwill]

Well, nobody has come to me with the argument that we do not need to do something to alleviate the congestion, and of course the whole point of the Government’s consultation and the work that we are continuing to do is to ensure that we make the right decision based on environmental, traffic, cost and of course air quality grounds. Air quality is a major issue now, as the vehicles we are using on our road networks are failing to deliver the clean exhaust emissions that had been promised in earlier testing. It is disappointing how the vehicles operate in practice compared with the predictions that were made about them. In fact, in terms of journey time reliability, the crossing is consistently one of the worst performing links in the strategic road network, and it is forecast that the problems will get worse in the future.

A succession of Governments, both at national and local level, commissioned studies on congestion and possible new river crossings. A study for the Department for Transport in 2009 identified short and medium-term measures to improve traffic flows. It concluded that a new crossing was needed in the long term, and shortlisted a number of potential locations: option A at the existing Dartford-Thurrock crossing; option B connecting with the A2, which we have since discarded; option C connecting the M2 with the A13 and the M25 between junctions 29 and 30; and the option C variant that would additionally widen the A229 between the M2 and the M20. The Government have been determined to solve the problem from the outset.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. Indeed, the Department is currently considering what further improvements may be needed on the M25, A282 and A13 to ensure that, when we address the bottleneck at the crossing, we do not push the congestion north and south to other parts of the M25, which is already a very congested road.

A number of consultation responses requested that we reopen other options previously rejected. Some, like my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, advocated options further east downstream, while others advocated options further west within London. However, given the Government’s objectives for the crossing, as set out in the consultation, 1 am not convinced there are any reasons that would justify reopening previously rejected options. I am sorry to disappoint her. Further information about the consultation feedback is set out in a consultation response summary published online by my Department alongside the Secretary of State’s announcement last December.

That brings us to the point we have reached in determining where to locate a new lower Thames crossing. As I said at the beginning, we have narrowed down the options and are obtaining further advice on points raised during the consultation in order to weigh up the relative merits of the remaining options. In pursuing further advice, I am listening to concerns expressed by respondents to the consultation. Specifically, I am seeking more information, first, on the scale of further improvements that may be required on the M25, A282 and A13. Secondly, I am seeking further information on potential implications for compliance with national and European air quality targets. Many hon. Members will have seen the coverage of our planned improvements to the A1 in South Yorkshire and Derbyshire, where we are having to take measures to reduce the speed of vehicles to reduce the pollution, particularly nitrogen oxides, that puts us in danger of breaching those targets. Thirdly, I am seeking more information on the scale of mitigation that may be needed to avoid impacts on protected habitats.

I make it clear that we have no plans to consult on additional options. The options we are still considering for a new lower Thames crossing are: option A, at the existing Dartford-Thurrock crossing; option C, connecting the M2 with the A13 and the M25 between junctions 29 and 30; and the option C variant that would additionally widen the A229 between the M2 and the M20.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

The Minister has confirmed that he is still considering those options, but will he reassure me that there will be a close examination of the exact routes taken when the crossing hits the north bank? We have serious concerns about the impact on the M25 and the A13. Will there be further consultation with the community on those potential impacts?

[Mr Goodwill]

We are looking at the M25 as a whole as part of our route-based strategies, and will look at potential future routes for any outer orbital road, but we are not currently looking at that to tackle the urgent problem we have now.

The decision has far-reaching consequences and is not to be rushed. We will, however, make an announcement on our consideration of the options as soon as possible. My Department and the Highways Agency remain committed to accelerating delivery of infrastructure projects such as the lower Thames crossing. The final location decision need not delay the delivery of the crossing, as development of the remaining options continues.

A new lower Thames crossing represents a unique and challenging opportunity to address serious capacity issues on the strategic road network for the longer term, yet each option raises serious questions to which we are duly giving our full attention. I trust that hon. Friends and hon. Members will maintain their interest in the new lower Thames crossing as the Government progress and refine their proposal, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and her colleagues will not be backwards in coming forwards to make their views known to me and my departmental colleagues.