Justice and Security Bill [Lords]
Sadiq Khan Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Clarke
I was intending to return to the details of closed material procedures later. We could easily trade quotations, because various judges and legal authorities have expressed different views.
Closed material procedures sometimes achieve success. We have them now—the previous Government introduced them—and as I shall say later, as I should save it until I get to the relevant part of my speech, there are cases in which the special advocates have overturned the Government’s case. The most well known case is that of Abu Qatada, who won in a closed material procedure before a British judge only about a month ago—
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio has spoken for exactly one hour. Everyone will be pleased to know that my contribution will be far shorter.
Before us is a Bill that is less bad than when the Government first published it. It is less bad because of the changes made to it by colleagues in the other place, which have started to restore some equilibrium in the great balancing act that we face between our nation’s security and the rights of individuals up and down the country. I want to make it clear, up front and in very simple terms, that Labour Members fully recognise the very important issues that the Government are seeking to grapple with in this Bill. The Minister called for a serious debate, and I hope that we get one this afternoon and in Committee.
Our intelligence agencies do untold amounts of good work in keeping the citizens of this country safe. I should like again to put on record our appreciation of this role. Our intelligence agencies are fighting to defend our democratic values, so it is only right that those same agencies should be subjected to those same democratic values, which include judicial and parliamentary scrutiny. That is why part 1 is so important. It outlines attempts progressively to reform the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee, giving it a formal statutory footing with improvements in how the membership and Chair are chosen. I agree with what the Minister said about this, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) will say more on that at the conclusion of the debate.
The issue in part 2 is one of allowing justice to take its course, with those on the end of alleged true abuses of power and indiscretions allowed to seek full and proper recourse, and with the Government also in a position whereby they can defend themselves. I intend to focus my remarks on this part, especially given the changes made by colleagues in the other place. The Minister informed the House that he will accept some of them, albeit not yet all of them.
The marriage of justice and security in the Bill’s title hints at the difficult but not impossible balancing act that is required. It is simply wrong to argue that the achievement of one is to the detriment of the other. Those who take this view are failing to show sufficient respect for the nature of the issues. Openness and transparency of justice is a hugely important principle. Any deviation from this hundreds-of-years-long tradition should be considered only in the most extreme of circumstances and must be accompanied by transparent checks and balances. The Bill, as first published by the Government, failed in that respect.
At this point, I must turn my attention to the role of the Minister without Portfolio, who kept hold of the responsibility for this Bill after the reshuffle. The House will know that I have a huge amount of respect for him, and—dare I say it?—affection as well. He is a national treasure. It is worth considering the suspicion that many felt as to why the Prime Minister decided that he should retain control of the Bill. It is hard not to conclude that it was for his “liberal credentials”. The suspicion was that the Prime Minister thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would make a better sell of the proposals on secret courts than his successor as Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who does not have quite the same “liberal credentials.”
That may well be the case. In any event, I am afraid that the Minister has made a hash of the Bill up until now. He has rushed headlong into legislation, despite guarantees to the contrary. He has failed to listen to the concerns of a very wide range of groups and experts. He has criticised those who have genuine concerns, as he did again today, building up straw men only to knock them down. I am afraid that on some occasions he has given the impression that he has failed to understand the details of his own Bill. I do not know about pushing at an open door, but he has now been on the receiving end of three humiliating defeats in the House of Lords and forced to concede further changes or face the prospect of even more defeats.
Part 2 includes clauses 6 to 13 on the introduction of closed material proceedings, or CMPs, into our civil justice system. CMPs will allow the Government to hold in secret parts of court hearings in which an individual is seeking recourse through our civil courts. These are civil actions for damages for claims ranging from allegations of rendition to allegations of complicity in torture and the most serious forms of tort there are.
Sadiq Khan
Just this once. I want to make progress because many other Members want to get in.
Jeremy Corbyn
My right hon. Friend will be well aware that in cases of allegations of torture and extraordinary rendition it has been the devil’s own job to get any information, transparency or accountability, and this has gone on for a very long time. Does he not think that this Bill misses an opportunity to lift the cover on the whole miserable period since 2001 when we have had extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo Bay?
Sadiq Khan
I will come to some of the huge improvements made in the other place.
The Government claim that they are unable to defend themselves in court because the nature of the evidence they would need to deploy is so bound up with sensitive intelligence as to make it impossible for it to be made public. As a result, they are having to settle cases and pay out-of-court compensation. By allowing CMPs in situations involving national security, the Government are seeking to avoid situations where cases are not seen through to their conclusion and avoid the premature payment of compensation.
Let us go right back to the very beginning of this legislative process. The original proposals that were published in the Green Paper involved huge issues. The Minister said at the time that after the consultation on the Green Paper, he expected a White Paper, followed by a Bill. We had serious problems with the Green Paper, but we were encouraged by the sensible pace at which he proposed to progress.
As I have said, the original Green Paper was roundly criticised by others for being too broadly drafted in its coverage of CMPs. After the consultation, the Government decided to jettison secret inquests, making a virtue, as has happened again today, of this concession. I pay tribute to the Royal British Legion and the non-governmental organisation, Inquest, for successfully fighting that barmy idea. Many suspect, however, that the inclusion of inquests in the first place was a wheeze—an idea that would be later binned and presented as a major concession. It is the oldest trick in the book.
The process then changed: there was no White Paper. Instead, we jumped straight from the Green Paper to a Bill, which, while including inquests, did not take on board the wide range of concerns that had been raised about the proposals. In many people’s eyes, the Bill’s process for deciding when there should be a CMP was worse than the process set out in the Green Paper. Even more power was concentrated in the hands of Ministers to decide what would stay secret, while judges had fewer powers to take a balanced view on whether it was in the national interest to keep something secret or whether it was in the public interest to disclose it.
It is on this point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman disagrees with many independent experts, including judges, about how the process will work. He insisted that the CMP process was a judge-led, balancing exercise and that it was not a Minister-led process. He repeated that several times, criticising those who dared to question his assertions, and he has done so again today. I and many others have picked him up on this, because the Bill as drafted was clear: it was not a judge-led process. In the old clause 6, there was no balancing exercise. It was a grab for power by Ministers. They would have decided what stayed secret and what did not. Judges were left with no option but to grant a CMP. The word used was “must”, not “may”. It was simply unacceptable. The power that that would have handed to the Executive to keep material secret was unacceptable and I am pleased that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has accepted the change made in the other place.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
Extraordinary assertions keep being made outside this House that the Bill allows Ministers to decide whether there should be closed material proceedings, but that is complete nonsense. The “must” to “may” amendment arises in circumstances where the judge who takes the decision decides that national security would be at issue. The original Bill said that once he finds that there is a risk to national security, he “must” have a closed material procedure. Such is the concern of all these critics that we have made it clear that we will accept a wider discretion, so even when the judge—not the Minister—is satisfied that national security is at risk, he “may” have a closed material procedure. I submit that people should think about the possibility that that leaves the judge with all the discretion in the world to think about all the other issues that might mean there is some compelling reason in a particular case not to allow a CMP, even when national security is threatened. I simply do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman—he is not the first; I am not singling him out—and others keep asserting that Ministers will decide on that when the Government gave up that position months ago.
Sadiq Khan
I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not practised law for a while, but he is wrong. The old Bill clearly said that if a Minister decides that there is a threat to national security, the judge must order a CMP. The improvements made by the House of Lords changed that and I am glad that he has accepted them.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has lashed out—he did it again today—at what he called the “reactionary” elements of the civil liberties community. He is sniggering, but he will recall that he was once a part of that community. Does he really believe that David Anderson QC, the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, fits that description? I remind him of what Mr Anderson said about the Bill’s original proposal that Ministers would trigger a closed hearing:
“That proposal seems to me profoundly wrong in principle. The decision whether to order a CMP is properly for the court in the exercise of its case management functions.”
He also said that a CMP should be used only if
“the just resolution of a case cannot be obtained by other procedural means (including not only PII but other established means such as confidentiality rings and hearings in camera).”
It seems that it was not just me who got it wrong; according to the Minister without Portfolio, his own independent reviewer of terrorism legislation also got it wrong.
Advocates also appear to have got it wrong by not understanding the Bill as previously drafted. Many esteemed legal Members of the other place, such as Lord Pannick, Lord Macdonald and Lord Phillips, also got it wrong if the Minister without Portfolio is correct.
On 19 November, the day the other place considered the Bill on Report, an editorial in The Times—hardly a member of the “reactionary” civil liberties community—said:
“The Justice and Security Bill being considered in the House of Lords today cannot be allowed to stand in its current form”.
The Daily Mail, which is not historically known to be a “reactionary” element of the civil liberties community, either, has also consistently opposed the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s original proposals.
I accept that some have argued strenuously against the whole principle of CMPs in our civil courts. Others have focused their energies on ensuring that the Bill has proper checks and balances in place.
Sadiq Khan
I will give way to the Minister without Portfolio. Clearly, one hour was not enough for him.
Mr Clarke
We are merely warming up. To refresh the right hon. Gentleman’s memory, I have a copy of the original Bill. I think he is talking about a debate that was last sensibly carried out when the Green Paper, in which we said that it would be for a Minister to decide on this matter, was considered. Clause 6(2) of the old Bill says:
“The court must, on an application under subsection (1), make such a declaration if the court considers that…(b) such a disclosure would be damaging to the interests of national security.”
We published the Bill on the basis that it was a judge’s decision. We are making the judge’s discretion wider. He does not have to have a CMP. Even if he is satisfied that national security is at risk, he “may” make a declaration, which is what has been proposed to us by the House of Lords.
Sadiq Khan
The right hon. and learned Gentleman can use the present or past tense, but the reality is that, previously, the judge would have had to order a CMP if the Minister said that there were national security issues. There was no balancing exercise. The changes made in the other place mean that the process is now judge-led and I am glad that the Minister without Portfolio welcomes them. I am glad that legal experts agree with me. We will have a chance to come back to the issue later.
The defeats inflicted on the Government in the other place were truly stunning—the Minister without Portfolio used the phrase, “Pushing at an open door”—with majorities of 100, 105 and 87. Those defeats mean that, as the Bill stands, there will be an equality of arms between the two parties in a civil action and a full judicial balancing of the competing public interest. Moreover, if CMPs are to be granted, it must be as a last resort—I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not like that change made in the other place—and, importantly, there will now be judicial balancing within the CMP.
I have no doubt that there would have been more defeats had the Minister in the other place, Lord Wallace, not seen sense and conceded on other amendments. The scale of those Government defeats is testament to the enormous levels of unhappiness of distinguished legal experts and serious people with the Bill as originally published.
I pay tribute to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, particularly its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), for the work it has done. Its amendments—the Opposition supported the majority of them—were the basis of the victories in the House of Lords. We will seek to make other changes to the Bill in Committee, in order to ensure greater fairness. We will oppose any attempts to water down the improvements that have already been made.
I want to touch briefly on clauses 14 and 15, which address the so-called Norwich Pharmacal cases. They prevent the disclosure of “sensitive information” that the Secretary of State certifies it would be contrary to the interests of national security or international relations to disclose. In those cases, a party seeks an order for the disclosure of evidence in order to pursue or defend a case against a third party, possibly outside the jurisdiction, as in the cases that have attracted attention in which the defendant—that is, the Government—is to some degree mixed up in events, perhaps by quite innocently coming into possession of some information.
Disclosure via Norwich Pharmacal is, we are told, already seriously undermining confidence among our most important partners, including the United States of America. That is an important matter for our intelligence agencies, which I have already paid tribute to, because they probably work more closely with their colleagues in the USA than those in any other country. We understand the importance of the control principle.
Although there may be an issue that needs to be addressed and a case for regularising the situation created by the Norwich Pharmacal cases, we question whether the Government’s approach is too broad. We will test that in Committee. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, agrees with our position and has publicly accepted that there is
“a case for restricting the novel application of the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction to national security information.”
He concluded, however, that what is now clause 14 was too broad in its application.
We do not intend to oppose the Bill on Second Reading. However, I hope that I have made it clear that we wish not only to hold on to the improvements that were made to the Bill in the other place, but to use the Committee stage to seek further improvements. How we vote on Report and Third Reading will be determined by the Government’s actions in Committee between now and then.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sadiq Khan Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, and I would be very happy to pay him to take his moustache off as soon as he wishes to do so. [Interruption.] Well, these are the times of austerity, so we will have to be modest.
On the first point, I think there has been a real sea change in how we debate and talk about mental health not only in society but, as we have movingly seen recently, in this House. The taboo has been broken and politicians now speak about mental health problems, which afflict one in four families in this country. That is a very healthy development, and we are seeking to reflect it in legislation by removing the bar on those with mental health problems being in office and remaining as Members of this House.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that the House of Lords will tomorrow consider Government plans to allow Ministers the right to have civil actions against them held in secret, thus depriving claimants of the chance to see the evidence. Can he explain to the House why he and the Conservative party are right on this, and the Cross-Bencher Lord David Pannick QC, the Labour party, the Lib Dem peer and former Director of Public Prosecutions Lord Ken Macdonald, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Liberty, Reprieve, Justice, the Lords Constitution Committee and other legal experts are so utterly wrong?
The Deputy Prime Minister
This is a very important issue and I am looking forward to the Labour party’s revealing what it believes on this, as on so many other issues. If the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the Bill were accurate, I would agree with him. Of course I would; no one wants to see evidence and matters heard in open court decanted into closed material proceedings. Let me make it clear that the Government’s view—it is certainly mine, as I would find this unacceptable otherwise—is that the provision will apply only to those cases where at the moment the evidence is not heard at all. It is not a question of a choice, with evidence held in open court being moved into closed court, as nothing will be heard—[Interruption.] The judge decides on how the procedure is conducted.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and I want to pick up on that if I may. As he knows very well, the Committee has tabled an extensive range of amendments to improve the Bill. I am very sympathetic to a lot of what the Committee says, and the Government are considering its amendments with an open and, in many respects, sympathetic mind. I hope that we will be able to amend the Bill to allay those concerns in line with many of the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sadiq Khan Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister
I was surprised when parties and Members in this House, having fought on a manifesto commitment to reform the House of Lords, decided against simply voting in favour of a timetable motion to do so. These things happen, and I think that everybody in the country understands that a coalition Government is a deal. It is like a contract, and where one part of the contract is amended another part of the contract is amended as well, and we move on.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I begin by welcoming the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) and congratulating her on her new role. We genuinely wish her well. I also welcome the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister has finally found some principle and backbone. We welcome his rigour in answering the last question raised in relation to the one asked by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). But bearing in mind that during the last year thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money has been spent on a boundary review that will be futile, and that there will be uncertainty and further taxpayers’ money spent during the next 14 months, why not use his power to put a stop to it now?
Oral Answers to Questions
Sadiq Khan Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister
As ever, my hon. Friend brings to bear a healthy and consistent degree of suspicion. I have set out the reasons why the case for a referendum has not been made. It would be expensive, difficult to justify to the public, who do not think it is necessary, and ill timed when we as a country have a much bigger question to address, which is the future of the United Kingdom, let alone the future of one of our parliamentary Chambers.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that even without a programme motion, it is perfectly possible for the House of Commons to debate, scrutinise and amend the House of Lords Reform Bill, and get it out of the Commons, in a sensible time? If he does not agree, why did his manifesto and that of the Conservatives commit to abolishing programme motions for Committee stages?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My own view, which I have always been very open about, is that a Bill of this complexity and self-evident controversy—at least in this place—is unlikely to progress without being properly timetabled in one shape or form. I should just ask the right hon. Gentleman this: is it not time he had the courage of his convictions? He says he believes in House of Lords reform, but he wills only the ends, not the means—[Interruption.] Will he just listen? The history books will not judge him kindly if he takes refuge in procedural obfuscation when this is a time for people to stand up and be counted.
House of Lords Reform Bill
Sadiq Khan Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I am pleased to be here to debate these important constitutional changes. I admit that while the country is stuck in a double-dip recession and millions are still out of work, this would not have been my priority if I were sitting on the Government Benches, but unfortunately we cannot set the Government’s priorities, and we are where we are.
I am pleased to be here because, frankly, the Deputy Prime Minister’s Bill is a bit of a mess, and I am afraid that his speech did not help matters much either. As a supporter of House of Lords reform, I want to do what I can to ensure that reform comes about, but that it is the right reform and is supported by the people. The Bill has huge implications for how Parliament and our Government operate, so we need to get it right. The reforms will form the basis of a lasting settlement between Parliament and the British people, so we need time to get it right—something I shall speak to a little later.
The Chamber has debated House of Lords reform many times, as anyone who reads the excellent House of Lords Library paper on the chronology of Lords reform will soon realise. It is 95 pages long—and that is only for the period 1997 to 2010. It does not include the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, the creation of life peerages in 1958 or other unsuccessful attempts at reform.
The Labour party remains very much in favour of reforming the second Chamber and will support the Bill on Second Reading tomorrow night. Ever since I have been in my current role, I have emphasised our desire to seek a consensus on Lords reform, as did Labour Ministers when we were in government. The Deputy Prime Minister referred to cross-party talks and consensus. I attended the cross-party discussions that he chaired, but unfortunately they were curtailed before we had the chance to discuss all the issues. Our last meeting was in November 2010.
When in government, we recognised that consensus building was crucial to the success of constitutional change, as well as the dangers of impermanence stemming from one Government imposing their will on our constitution, only to see their changes undone by the next Government. Our constitution deserves better than partisan self-serving change.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I have a simple question. The right hon. Gentleman says he needs more time to look at the Bill and get it right. How much more time does he need?
Sadiq Khan
I shall give the hon. Gentleman a simple answer: wait and hear!
Rather than working with us on House of Lords reform, the Deputy Prime Minister has occasionally chosen to pursue a lofty, hectoring stance. I am afraid that his piety has done great harm to the cause of constitutional reform. Labour has decided to support the Bill on Second Reading in spite of his attitude, not because of it.
Let me take this opportunity to lay to rest the myths spread about Labour’s record on House of Lords reform. The changes that Labour enacted to the second Chamber between 1997 and 2010 were unparalleled. No political party—certainly not in modern times—comes anywhere near our legacy. Just 15 years ago, in 1997, the second Chamber was still full of hereditary peers, so the government of the country was still determined by a group of people chosen by birth right. It was the politics of a previous century and a different time. After considerable debate, Labour pushed ahead with the removal of hereditary peers. Many here will remember the enormous objections in the other place and from Conservative Members. In fact, 13 of the current Cabinet voted against the Second Reading of the House of Lords Act 1999.
And what did the Liberal Democrats do?
Stephen Gilbert
Rather than the right hon. Gentleman asking me questions, I would like to ask him one. How will the Labour party vote on the programme motion?
Sadiq Khan
I will answer the question myself. On the Third Reading of the Bill abolishing 90% of hereditary peers, the Lib Dems abstained. I know a reshuffle is due, but the hon. Gentleman should stop reading the Whips’ sheet and listen to the debate.
The Lib Dems abstained. Subsequently, we introduced people’s peers and a proper appointments process, and we also sought to ensure that no single party would have a majority of Members in the second Chamber. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 resulted in a far-reaching separation of powers, with senior Law Lords removed from the other place. The UK for the first time had its own dedicated Supreme Court, which is now firmly established on the other side of Parliament square. It is also worth reminding the House what happened on that occasion. Thirteen members of the current Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, supported a reasoned amendment declining to give that Bill a Second Reading in 2005. What did the Liberal Democrats do on Third Reading? Yes, they decisively abstained. We are therefore comfortable with our record in government on good constitutional reform.
Andrew Bridgen
The right hon. Gentleman talks about creating a consensus across the Chamber about Lords reform, but is not the truth that this Bill, if enacted, will not reform the House of Lords, but effectively abolish it? The House of Lords is a fine institution. It is not broken, so why do we need to fix it?
Sadiq Khan
The hon. Gentleman is right that the reforms, if carried through, will replace the House of Lords as we know it now. However, I will come to the semantics of the words “abolish” or “replace” in a moment.
It is fair to say that Labour would have liked to go much further. On occasion we tried to achieve much more, but we were held back. Our decision to proceed only with cross-party consensus acted as a restraint on the pace of reform. Proposals floated by Labour ran into fierce opposition. Despite healthy general election majorities, Labour did not seek to impose our wholesale reforms on a divided House of Commons. It is ironic that this has left us open to criticism by the Deputy Prime Minister—and, I hear, the Chancellor—for not doing enough during our years in government.
The House of Lords Reform Bill was first published on 27 June. A draft Bill was published in May last year, which was largely castigated in this Chamber and the other place. Before the Bill’s publication, the Deputy Prime Minister set great store by the findings of the Joint Committee established to look into the draft Bill. Let me take this opportunity to thank all the members of the Joint Committee, who spent nine months on the report. The Joint Committee published its report on 23 April, with an alternative report published by 12 of its members.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman’s manifesto at the last election stated:
“To begin the task of building a new politics, we will let the British people decide on whether to make Parliament more democratic and accountable”
in a referendum. Is that still his party’s view?
Sadiq Khan
It very much is. Unlike the hon. Gentleman’s coalition partners, we keep our promises.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman said that he required time to consider the Bill. How long does he require—10, 15, 20 or 25 days? Will he enlighten the House by saying how long he feels is necessary?
Sadiq Khan
We are in favour of reform. I will come to the issue of timing in a moment.
I note from his opening statement that the Deputy Prime Minister highlighted areas where the Bill had been amended as a result of the Joint Committee’s report, but he was less keen to highlight those where he has not taken on board the Joint Committee’s views. He knows as well as I do that he has cherry-picked from the Joint Committee’s report, while blindly ignoring its other key recommendations and concerns. Let me turn to the Bill itself. If I was being generous, I would have to say that the Bill as it stands is a bit of a mess.
Mrs Laing
Having sat on the Joint Committee for eight months, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the report was critical of the Government’s Bill. The alternative report—signed by 12 of the Joint Committee’s 25 members—was even more critical. The Committee agreed that eight months was not long enough to give proper scrutiny to the Bill, so how could 10 days be long enough for this House?
Sadiq Khan
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She reminds us that there are still a number of major deficiencies, which will need to be looked at in Committee, if the Bill is to be improved. Our support for giving the Bill a Second Reading should therefore not be taken as a blank cheque.
We have many concerns—many of them major—about the content of the Bill, but I shall concentrate on three areas.
The area of powers and conventions deserves our greatest attention. With all the focus on form, the Government have neglected function. On primacy, the Government have sought to rewrite the inadequate clause 2 of the draft Bill and dropped any reference to the conventions governing the relationship between the Houses. It remains to be seen whether this will deal satisfactorily with the issue; constitutional experts are no doubt poring over this as we speak. As the Bill will be debated on the Floor of the House, and as new clause 2 was not considered by the Joint Committee, there has been no pre-legislative scrutiny. We simply do not know whether the provision is adequate. Labour Members want to ensure that the Commons maintains its primacy even when a second Chamber becomes elected.
It is impossible to predict what changes might develop in the culture of the House of Lords following reform, but it seems likely that elected Members will expect to play at least a fairly assertive role and that voters may share that view. When the European Parliament went from being an appointed to an elected body, it demanded more powers to reflect its democratic mandate. Why should elected Members of the second Chamber be bound by conventions that bind a Chamber of hereditary and appointed peers? The Bill effectively washes its hands of this issue.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend explain why it is good enough to have a referendum when we are electing a mayor in a city, yet not good enough to have one when we are changing the constitution?
Sadiq Khan
I heard the Deputy Prime Minister desperately trying to answer that question, but on four or five occasions when such questions were put to him by his hon. Friends, he failed to answer them.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Did my hon. Friend notice that in answering one of his colleagues earlier, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the coalition had decided on a change to the voting system in favour of proportional representation? Only a few months ago, however, the electorate rejected that, but the coalition is not prepared to accept the democratic will of the electorate.
Sadiq Khan
It is worse than that. The Joint Committee did not even examine the type of voting system that is now being proposed. It was pulled out of a hat without any proper consideration.
Although the Bill recognises that conventions—[Interruption.] Ministers on the Treasury Bench need to calm down.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the semi-open list system was exactly the system that he personally asked for in the Joint Committee?
Sadiq Khan
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm two things: first, that the Joint Committee stopped sitting in November 2010; and, secondly, that the Joint Committee of both Houses failed to consider this system? He decides not to respond.
Sadiq Khan
The Bill recognises that conventions may evolve, and assumes this will happen of its own accord during the transition phases. We believe that that is too passive and is a dangerous position. The obvious questions requiring clarification include the following. What is the position on the Salisbury-Addison convention about Bills and the prevention of manifesto commitments? What about the convention that the Lords does not usually object to secondary legislation? More than 1,000 pieces of secondary legislation go through Parliament each year; the Parliament Acts do not cover this. What about the convention that the Government should get their business through in reasonable time? The Parliament Acts still allow Bills to be delayed for 13 months. What is the position on the exchange of amendments between Houses? The Lords could force the Commons to concede on major changes or resort to the use of the Parliament Acts. I am not saying that those questions cannot be answered adequately; it is just that the Government appear not even to realise that these are live issues. They have their heads in the sand.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The shadow Secretary of State is making a powerful speech. He refers to the Government’s Bill. Is it not a fact that there are 10 Ministers sitting on the Front Bench today, of whom only two are Conservative and eight are Liberal? Does that not show where the real support for this Bill comes from?
Sadiq Khan
It is not for me to get involved in private family grief.
It is simply not clear how any dispute about the use of powers or appropriate interpretation of conventions could be adjudicated or effectively enforced? We think the Bill will need to play a more active role in addressing powers and conventions, particularly if we are to placate the legitimate fears of colleagues on all sides and in both Chambers. Failure to do so risks storing up big problems for the future.
Mrs Main
I should appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on the function of this apparent second House. Does he share my fear that when the majority of its Members are elected and a small proportion will be appointed, there will be a divided second House some of whose Members will have more power than others? When it comes to a tied vote, who will really win?
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Tim Farron
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statesmanlike address. He seeks credit for the Labour party for reforming history, and he is right to do so. The last but one Labour Prime Minister, who introduced devolution in Scotland and Wales and a Northern Ireland Assembly, and, indeed, introduced proportional representation for European elections without a referendum, deserves enormous credit.
Does the right hon. Gentleman feel comfortable about concentrating on the details now, and essentially asking for a prevaricators’ charter? Does he feel comfortable about being ranked as a pygmy alongside those giants of constitutional reform?
Sadiq Khan
I am not sure whether I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. He seems to be suggesting that we skip the details and rush the Bill through the House, and I am not sure that that is my idea of good government.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my right hon. Friend feel as uncomfortable as I do when listening to the Liberal Democrats lecturing people on referendum commitments in manifestos when they cannot even keep to their own commitments to their coalition colleagues, or on tuition fees?
Sadiq Khan
I am always uncomfortable when listening to Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Sheerman
My right hon. Friend is making some very good points. I have been in the House for long enough to have voted for many of the progressive measures introduced by a Labour Government, but one of the things that worry the reformers on the Opposition Benches who want change in the upper House is the quality of the people who would end up there—and there is nothing in the Bill to assure us that the party machines will not control all the people who end up there.
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend highlights one of the problems of a list system. That is one of the reasons why we are surprised that the Joint Committee, which sat for nine months, did not consider the type of system that is being imposed in the Bill.
“I am a supporter of a fully elected House of Lords”.—[Official Report, 5 April 2011; Vol. 526, c. 879.]
Those are not my words—although I agree with them—but the words of the Deputy Prime Minister. However, his Bill proposes the establishment of an 80% elected Chamber. We are disappointed that it has not gone for a fully elected second Chamber. Even the Joint Committee was split, recognising that there was a case for that.
Our position is that we want a fully elected second Chamber, and that was also the position taken in the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto. By allowing some Members still to be appointed, the Deputy Prime Minister is weakening his own arguments for having elected Members in the second Chamber. The Deputy Prime Minister’s pet phrase—although he did not use it today—is “Do not let the best be the enemy of the good”, but in proposing a hybrid Chamber he may be storing up problems for the future.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
I was a little confused by the right hon. Gentleman’s criticism of the open list system. One of the things that we did after listening to the Joint Committee was adopt an open list system, in the spirit of consensus, as it is exactly what the Labour party put in its manifesto.
Sadiq Khan
The Minister is wrong to suggest that the Joint Committee had an opportunity to consider the system that he has now put in the Bill. It simply did not. I am willing to give way to the Minister again. Did the Joint Committee consider the type of voting system that is in the Bill? Well, the Minister has decided to remain in his seat, which is his prerogative.
There are legitimate concerns about the possibility that this hybrid system will lead to tensions between the different types of Member, and that those who are elected and are full time will consider themselves more legitimate, and be treated as such, than those who are unelected and part time. There are also other concerns, which will no doubt be raised over the next two days.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Joint Committee had considered the issue of open lists. Obviously we did not consider the specific clauses that are now in the Bill, but if he reads our report he will see that there is a section referring to open lists, and a recommendation that states
“In the Committee's view, the voting system chosen should give voters the widest choice… of where to cast their preferences, whether that is within a single party or across candidates”.
We did consider the issue, and the right hon. Gentleman may wish to correct the record.
Sadiq Khan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for helping me out by confirming that the clause was not considered by the Joint Committee.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
In answer to an intervention from the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), the Deputy Prime Minister said there could be some kind of referendum or investigation after the election of the first tranche of peers. That shows that we need a more detailed investigation of the Bill, because the rules are changing as we go along.
Sadiq Khan
It is worrying that the Deputy Prime Minister has today decided to pull a rabbit out of the hat by suggesting the idea of a referendum once we have some peers appointed or elected in the way that he wants.
We also need to be clear that the model is not quite as simple as the 80:20 split that has been portrayed. The Bill permits the Prime Minister of the day to appoint eight additional Ministers to sit in the Chamber. That will mean that, once again, patronage will lead to a place in the second Chamber—so much for accountability and the end of patronage! Over the period of a Government, that could accumulate, and result in a fair number of partisan ex-Ministers with full voting rights being members of the legislature for 15-year terms by appointment via patronage. This, again, is against the advice of the Joint Committee.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman has discussed the problem with having different types of peers in the new upper House, but nobody has yet discussed the new ministerial Members, who will, of course—[Interruption.] Well, not in terms of numbers. The fact is that the Bill will allow the Prime Minister of the day to impose an unlimited number of ministerial peers who are not appointed by the independent appointments system.
Sadiq Khan
The draft Bill advocated the Prime Minister having the power to appoint Ministers, who would be members of the legislature for as long as they were Ministers. However, the Bill published last week says they can stay for 15 years, which is really quite remarkable.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for making public the historic levels of indecision on the Liberal Democrat Benches in respect of House of Lords reform. On the 15-years issue, the Deputy Prime Minister says this House contains career politicians. Surely, a 15-year job is a career.
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: 15 years non-renewable hardly leads to accountability.
A key absence from the Bill is that there will be no referendum. The Government have opted to impose their proposals on the public, rather than trust the people with a vote on House of Lords reform. We think that is an error, and it runs contrary to the growing tradition that major constitutional change should be put to the people in a referendum.
It is not only Labour that calls for a referendum. The Joint Committee also unanimously called for a referendum:
“The Committee recommends that, in view of the significance of the constitutional change brought forward for an elected House of Lords, the Government should submit the decision to a referendum.”
This Bill is much weaker as a result of the Government refusing to include a referendum.
We heard a number of defences of that position from the Deputy Prime Minister. He said a referendum was not needed because proposals to reform the House of Lords were in all three main parties’ manifestos. The manifestos said very different things, however. While Labour and the Lib Dems called for a wholly elected second Chamber—albeit Labour wanted a referendum as well—the Conservatives sought only to find consensus. It is not simply semantics to argue that the Conservatives never actually gave a commitment to reform the House of Lords; they gave a process commitment to seek dialogue to find common ground.
Sadiq Khan
I need to make some progress; I have been speaking for quite a while.
What is the best way to build consensus and to get a second Chamber that has legitimacy and public confidence? One way would be through holding a referendum. That would give consensus, public confidence and greater legitimacy.
Even if all three manifesto commitments had been identical, we would still push for a referendum. First, we would do so because it is in our manifesto. Secondly, as has been highlighted by a number of eminent commentators and colleagues from both sides of the Chamber, we would do so because someone who was opposed to reform of the House of Lords had no way of expressing that opinion at the last election. A referendum would allow a full and frank airing of views and allow voters the option to support, or oppose, the position.
Sadiq Khan
I want to make some progress.
The fact is that, under these proposals, by 2015, let alone 2025, the way in which the Members of the other Chamber are elected and appointed will be totally different from how it is now. That is a radical change; it is not simply tinkering. If it were just tinkering, I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister would not be quite so keen to champion the proposals as he is now.
Moreover, Parliament has got into the habit—some would call it a convention, and a good one at that—of holding referendums on major constitutional change. When in government, Labour did so in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on devolution proposals, and in London on the creation of the mayoralty and the assembly. We also did so on giving further powers to the Welsh Assembly. We gave the people of the north-east of England a referendum to vote on regional government —a proposal they rejected. Even this Government have held a referendum on changing the voting system. People will not unreasonably think that the Deputy Prime Minister fears that his latest set of proposals will suffer the same fate as his electoral reform ideas. Referendums were also held in towns and cities up and down the country on proposals for elected mayors less than eight weeks ago. So if a referendum is good enough for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, London, the north-east, Bristol, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham, Wakefield, and for the alternative vote system, it is certainly good enough for Lords reform—an issue of national significance.
Time prevents me from dealing with the other areas where this Bill needs improvement, which include the length of the terms; whether those terms should be renewable; the cost of the second Chamber; the transitional arrangements; and the system of elections. There are more such issues, but time is running away.
We have made it clear that we will be voting to give the Bill a Second Reading; we support the principle of reform of the House of Lords. As the Government have decided to introduce this Bill, our job is to respond. We will oppose where we think things are not right and we will support them when we think they are the right thing to do. As I have said, on this occasion we will be supporting the progress of this Bill, but the Committee stage will offer the opportunity for the House to shape the Bill into something much better.
It is absolutely crucial—[Interruption.] I will answer the question that Ministers on the Treasury Bench have been chuntering about. It is crucial that the Bill is given sufficient time to be debated in detail. I know that the Chief Whip has now left, but attempts to shorten or stifle debate by the Government would be unhelpful. A fixed period of time for the Committee stage will not allow proper discussion of all 60 clauses and 11 schedules, and consideration of new clauses. Filibustering could render a full and frank debate impossible, which would be an utter travesty for a Bill of this importance. Let us consider the following:
“when there are really important matters before the House…a big Bill when Members want to say what they need on behalf of their constituents, they are unable to do so because of some ridiculous programme motion that does not take into account the gravity or importance of the measure.”—[Official Report, 2 February 2009; Vol. 487, c. 638.]
They are not my words; they are the words of the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman has not stinted from personal criticism of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, so why is he declining to tell the House of Commons how many days he thinks are necessary for this Bill? If he and his party are so committed to the reform of the House of Lords, why is it, if they oppose the programme motion, that they will find themselves in the same Lobby as those opposed, root and branch, to any reform at all?
Sadiq Khan
I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about his coalition partners. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Liberal Democrat Members should not be yelling at the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) intervened and the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) is replying. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) is an aspiring statesman—
Mr Speaker
Well, perhaps he thinks he is a statesman already, and he should behave accordingly. Let us hear Mr Sadiq Khan.
Sadiq Khan
I have already told the House what the Deputy Leader of the House thought a few months before he had the burdens of high office. Only two months before he became part of the Government and part of the Executive, he said that programme motions are
“imposed by the Executive to prevent debate”.—[Official Report, 2 March 2010; Vol. 506, c. 819.]
Sadiq Khan
Let me refer to the manifesto on which the hon. Gentleman stood and won in 2010. In a section on the House of Commons entitled
“Strengthen the House of Commons to increase accountability”,
it stated that Parliament would be given
“control over its own agenda so that all bills leaving the Commons have been fully debated.”
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. One problem is that when we debate important pieces of legislation, we sometimes expect them to be corrected in the House of Lords and choose not to have votes in this Chamber as they take 15 minutes, losing us time for debate. Is it not therefore all the more important, particularly on clause 1, which contains nearly all the issues of composition, that we have as much time as it takes to get it absolutely right and to have as many votes as we need to get it right? Otherwise, there will be no prospect of the Bill ever coming into law because we will be unable to Parliament Act it.
Sadiq Khan
On a number of occasions, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have said that they will use the Parliament Act to get the Bill through, which means that the second Chamber’s ability to revise and improve will have gone and the Bill must leave this Chamber in the best state possible. If debate is guillotined, that will not be possible.
Margaret Beckett
My right hon. Friend has made a point in his effective speech of referring to the previous Government’s record on reforming and improving the House of Lords and of the Liberal Democrats’ failure to support us. Let me remind him that when we introduced the House of Lords Act 1999, if I recall correctly, we allowed four full days of debate on the Floor of the House on the five-clause Bill and we did not programme that discussion in any way because it was a constitutional matter.
Sadiq Khan
I apologise for correcting my right hon. Friend, but in fact there were nine days of debate, not four, on the Floor of the House. She is absolutely right in all other respects.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend understand that if he is not prepared to say how long a programme motion should specify for debate, even in his wildest dreams, while saying that he wants reform of the second Chamber, people outside this Chamber might well feel that his position is contradictory? Will he therefore consider entering into proper negotiations should the programme motion fail tomorrow night, so that we ensure that everyone outside this place knows that the Labour party is still a party of reform of the second Chamber?
Sadiq Khan
I thank the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee for his helpful words. It is important for us to ensure that we do that so that the public can see that we are genuine and because we believe in House of Lords reform. We do not want the Bill to get stuck in the House of Commons so we will enter into discussions, but the Government must talk to us. The Deputy Prime Minister has failed to talk to us on the substance of the Bill and what is really important is that the usual channels operate—
Sadiq Khan
I have already allowed the hon. Gentleman and others to intervene—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Of course I will give way.
Mr Heath
Let me make it absolutely plain: we have tried to speak to the Opposition at all times during the development of the Bill to find out how they long they want for the programming of it. They have declined to tell us and the right hon. Gentleman is declining to tell us today. That is why we cannot reach consensus; the Opposition do not want to tell us how long they want for the Bill, but simply want to vote against the programme motion.
Sadiq Khan
It will be for others to draw what conclusions they want to from those crocodile tears.
As the Leader of the House has returned to the Chamber, it is worth reminding ourselves of what the Conservatives believe about programme motions. He has said that
“today I can announce that we will abolish the practice of automatically guillotining Government Bills and give Parliament back the time it needs to make real improvements to the law.”
The manifesto on which he stood—the Conservative manifesto, not the Liberal Democrats one—stated that they would allow
“MPs the time to scrutinise law effectively”.
That is the point that we have been trying to make. Both coalition parties are clearly on the same page as Labour. The Bill before us today should be allowed to be fully debated and there should be no guillotining of debate by the Government.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is indeed the case that since 2010 we have tried to develop a consensual approach to the programming of legislation and on many constitutional Bills against which his party has voted on Second Reading, they have agreed to the programme motion. That has happened because we have had a sensible dialogue. I very much regret that, on this Bill, it has not been possible to have that dialogue and reach agreement.
Sadiq Khan
As somebody who was involved in the boundary changes Bill, I can say that that was not the case.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 made a substantial parliamentary change in Wales. Due to the approach of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives in the coalition, there was no discussion on the Floor of the House on the reduction from 40 seats to 30 for Wales. That is exactly what will happen if we have a programme motion for this Bill—we will be prevented from speaking out.
Sadiq Khan
It is worth reminding the House what happened: MPs from Wales did not get a chance to discuss their seats, and nor did MPs from Devon and Cornwall, but the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) got his chance to discuss his seat.
The Government are not only trying to deprive the public of their say in the matter by not giving them a referendum, but seeking to deprive the people’s representatives of the chance properly to scrutinise the Bill. For the avoidance of doubt, I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made quite clear: we want House of Lords reform and we do not want the Bill stuck in the Commons, but we need the opportunity properly to scrutinise, amend and improve it. Accordingly, we will vote against the programme motion tomorrow night, and hope that Members on both sides of the House join us.
Mrs Laing
Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that this is not just any Bill? The Bill brings about fundamental change to Parliament. It is a serious constitutional measure and, by convention, the House does not usually put a timetable—a limit—on a Bill of such constitutional significance.
Sadiq Khan
I heard Lib Dem Members chuntering while the hon. Lady, who sits on the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, sat on the Joint Committee and spoke for the Conservatives in opposition, made her important point.
The next two days offer an opportunity for views from all sides to be expressed. On previous occasions when the Chamber has debated House of Lords reform, there has been no shortage of opinions from across the full spectrum, all sincerely held and all genuine. I am certain that this occasion will be no different. I understand that more than 115 MPs have already indicated that they want to speak in the debate over the next two days. I know that there are siren voices of concern in all parts of the Chamber. There are those who favour reform, but have concerns about the Bill, and those who favour the status quo.
Let me end by saying that we can all agree that no one, except the Deputy Prime Minister, thinks that this is a perfect Bill. We will help the Government to give the Bill a Second Reading tomorrow night, but Government Back Benchers should vote with us on the programme motion so that we can all work together to achieve a better Bill.
Mr Heath
The right hon. Gentleman says “Do it now.” I asked him dozens of times how long he had waited for this Bill, and he never replied. Not once, so he can pipe down!
Others argue that they want reform, but not now, as there are and always will be other priorities. They are absolutely right that economic issues must be pre-eminent. That is the reason for this coalition Government, but it does not stop the House doing other things, and it never has. It did not prevent this House from passing one of the most important pieces of legislation on social policy we have ever had—the Education Act 1944—in the middle of a world war. I simply do not believe that this House cannot address more than one issue at a time.
A variety of Members said that they want reform, but not this reform. Some have argued that it is a mixture of proposals and not the unadulterated product of a single party’s programme. That is true, but these are the same people who also argue that we have failed to listen to others and that we have failed to reach consensus. We have tried to find common ground between the parties, and that is what is before us today.
Electoral Registration and Administration Bill
Sadiq Khan Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Shuker
The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that they will not be the electorate then, but in this place we should be better than that.
When we consider foreign policy, for example, we often examine how we set a timetable. There are two ways of setting a timetable for change. The first is by way of a conditions-based response, where we say that there are certain milestones to be hit—certain points at which we consider that the integrity of the process has been governed and understood by all, and the progress that has been made has been secured. The other route is by way of a purely date-led timetable. In the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, the previous Government set out a position where two parallel processes would happen at the same time: the existing register would continue in the way that it had, while we looked at and tried to understand how individual electoral registration affected the details of those people on the register. That strikes me as a wholly appropriate approach, and many Government Members, as they are now, supported those moves. Why for the sake of a year’s change or difference are we now going to cause ourselves trouble and store it up for the future?
We have heard a lot from the Minister about the data-matching trials, which are obviously important in order for us to see whether this shift has a measurable and discernible effect on how the register is produced. He has placed details in the Library today, and I am looking forward to seeing them. However, he said that he anticipates that only two thirds of the people currently on the register will be moved across.
Gavin Shuker
At best. The key issue is that we will not know, even from the pilots, whether that is an appropriate level until early 2013, by which point this legislation will have gone from this place. We will not be able to pull back from the brink if demonstrably lower levels of data matching are shown. The Minister was clear about the onus put on those trials in the first place; it was a key reason why this was an appropriate route to go down. In answer to my intervention, he said that he hoped the number on the electoral register will not decrease, and will instead increase, as a result of these changes. What safeguards are in place if the data-matching trials come back not with a figure of 66% or 55%, which is the sort of figure others have spoken about, but a significantly lower one? Answer comes there none.
Secondly, on the 2015 review of boundaries for the 2020 elections, to which this process is integral, we have very little in the way of answers about how the register will change constituency boundaries, which have already been changed to a great extent. I draw the House’s attention to the quotes from the Electoral Reform Society, which said:
“A substantial fall off in registered voters, weighted towards urban areas, would require the Boundary Commission to reduce the number of inner city seats. This will create thousands of “invisible” citizens who will not be accounted for or considered in many key decisions that affect their lives”.
I believe that that is the situation we are in now, and it might well extend further. That does a disservice to many of the groups that I mentioned.
Finally, I want to draw attention to the issue of young people. Students who are registered in their halls of residence are empowered to vote at a time of significant change and transition in their lives. I hope that they will not be disfranchised, because their voices must be heard if we are to maintain the credibility of the process and draw in new voters, too.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sadiq Khan Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister
I know there are strongly held views on this issue, as on many issues to do with reform of the other place. The balanced approach that we took as a Government in the draft Bill was to reduce the number of bishops from 26 to 12, but not to remove them altogether.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the way in which he answered those questions. How soon does he expect to be able to publish the Bill, and how many days does he think it is reasonable for MPs to have to debate it?
Oral Answers to Questions
Sadiq Khan Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister
I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend. There is an odd sort of circularity in the argument that, notwithstanding the fact that this House has voted clearly in favour of either a wholly or largely elected Chamber, somehow to preserve the primacy of this House we should not allow any legitimacy into the other place. That seems to me to be a somewhat self-serving argument.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Major constitutional change that is successful is best done by parties trying to work together and then putting the case to the country via a referendum. We have seen devolution to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and London done in that way, and on 3 May we will see cities across the country choosing via referendums whether they should have elected mayors. Will the Deputy Prime Minister work with those of us who want to see the second Chamber reformed and then trust the British public on this major constitutional change via a referendum?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, because he himself joined in the discussions, we had months and months of painstaking cross-party discussions about the content of the draft Bill, precisely because, as he quite rightly says, it is best to proceed with these important matters on a cross-party basis. All three parties, again as he knows, had in various shapes or sizes a commitment to a reformed House of Lords. It is something we have been discussing for a very long time as a country—close to a century.
There is an open debate to be had about when something is presented to the people via a referendum—or not. The Lords Committee that recently looked at the issue very clearly said that there should be a referendum if there is a proposal to abolish the House of Lords. That of course is not what we are proposing, because we are proposing to reform the composition of the House of Lords, so I do not share the right hon. Gentleman’s view that a referendum is justified in the way he describes, although I acknowledge that it was in his party’s manifesto at the last general election.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sadiq Khan Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister
I was struggling to see what I could usefully contribute to this issue, as I do not think it is a matter for Government, but I admire the strength of feeling with which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed himself on this important issue.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I welcome the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) to his place as the new Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. As a fellow south Londoner, I wish him well in his new job.
Since May 2010, 117 unelected peers have been appointed to the House of Lords, at an additional cost to the taxpayer of £63 million during the course of this Parliament. We know that a new House of Lords reform Bill will be the centrepiece of the Queen’s Speech. The Deputy Prime Minister believes that all parliamentarians should be democratically elected and he also believes in cutting public expenditure. Will he therefore confirm that as long as his proposals on Lords reform are in train, there will be no more peers appointed to the House of Lords?
The Deputy Prime Minister
No, clearly—[Interruption.] We have been open in the coalition agreement that, pending wholesale reform of the other place, we will continue to make appointments to the House of Lords in the time-honoured fashion in proportion to the share of the vote won by the parties at the last general election. As with so many issues where the Labour party has become terrifically pious in opposition, this is not something to which the right hon. Gentleman’s party adhered when in government.
Individual Voter Registration
Sadiq Khan Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises that according to the Electoral Commission there are currently up to 8.5 million electors missing from the UK electoral register and that the shift to individual registration is the biggest change to electoral matters since the introduction of the universal franchise; notes that there was cross-party support for the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, which proposed a phased five-year timetable for its introduction with safeguards to protect against a drop in registration levels, but that the Government proposes speeding up the timetable, removing some of these safeguards and eroding the civic duty on registering to vote by not applying the legal obligation to respond to an electoral registration officer’s request for information as exists for the household registration; further notes that, according to the Electoral Commission, if these proposed changes are not implemented properly there could be a reduction in registration of up to 65 per cent. in some areas, potentially leaving over 10 million unregistered voters, and that this would have a negative impact on the list from which jurors are drawn; believes that the 2015 boundary review process risks being discredited as a result of the unregistered millions; and calls on the Government to reconsider its current proposals that will lead to large-scale under-registration.
The move to individual electoral registration is the greatest shift in our electoral system since the introduction of the universal franchise. As a result, there is the highest imperative on us to get this right. There is wide support for the move to individual registration and an acceptance that the current system of household registration is neither fit for the modern world nor suitably robust against the perils of electoral fraud. The move is supported by the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Electoral Reform Society and the main political parties in the House. Our concerns are not about the ultimate objective of individual electoral registration but about some of the proposed means of achieving it.
I would like to make a point that I have made a number of times before about the importance of trying to get cross-party support for constitutional change. I am afraid that I do not agree with the wording in the coalition agreement on individual electoral registration—I will come to that later—but I welcome the process that the Government have adopted and how they are acting on this matter. We have had a draft Bill and a White Paper with pre-legislative scrutiny, and the Deputy Prime Minister has said twice on the Floor of the House that the Government are willing to listen to concerns—so too, when giving evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, did the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who has responsibility for political and constitutional reform and whom I welcome to his place. They appear to be keen to reach consensus before the Bill is finally published.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that when individual voter registration was introduced in Northern Ireland there was a dramatic fall in the level of registration? What will be put in place to ensure that that does not happen this time?
Sadiq Khan
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right to remind the House that in 2002, when individual electoral registration was introduced in Northern Ireland, there was a huge fall of 11% in the number of people on the register. I hope that this Government, like the previous Government, have learned the lessons of those changes. I shall come to that point shortly, if he will allow me.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
This is a genuine inquiry: will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether a significant proportion of that 11% subsequently rejoined the register, or whether very few did, which would suggest that the 11% were not entirely genuine in the first place?
Sadiq Khan
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a good question. The evidence from the experts is that of the 11% who were taken off the register about 5% should not have been on there. There has been increased integrity in the Northern Irish system but there has also been continued instability. Those who were originally taken off but should not have been have not come back on as quickly as we would have hoped. One reason for that was that there was not the carry forward—but I shall come to later.
To be fair to the Deputy Prime Minister, he has already confirmed one concession—that the Government are minded not to pursue the so-called opt-out, which would have allowed people effectively to exclude themselves permanently from the electoral register. We welcome that and are looking for more movement from the Government. In that spirit, we have called this debate—so that the Government can hear, at a relatively early stage in the process, some of the concerns that experienced colleagues on both sides of the House have about the Bill.
I remind the House that it was the previous Labour Government who legislated to introduce individual voter registration, with cross-party support. The Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 made provision for the phased introduction of a system of voluntary individual registration up to 2015 and compulsory registration thereafter. The full and final move to an individual voter registration system would not take place until after 2015, the intention being to pace the transition, allowing the Electoral Commission to monitor registration levels adequately and guarding against any adverse decline in the size of the roll. There was genuine cause for a cautious, phased introduction. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) has already referred to the Northern Irish experience, but when Northern Ireland shifted to individual voter registration in 2002, there was an 11% drop in the size of the electoral roll. In the aftermath of that dip, lessons were learned from Northern Ireland’s experiences which were built into our phased approach, complete with safeguards.
The 2009 Act received cross-party support. The individual voter registration provisions—in particular, the timetable and the phased introduction—came in for particular praise. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who now sits on the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, but who was then the Conservative shadow Minister, said:
“I am very pleased to have the opportunity to put it on the record once and for all that we agree with the Government that the accuracy, comprehensiveness and integrity of the register and…the system is paramount. That is one of the reasons why we will not oppose the timetable the Minister has suggested this evening…the Electoral Commission, electoral registration officers and others who will be involved in the implementation of the Government’s current plans are concerned that this should not be rushed, but taken step by step to ensure that the integrity of the system is protected”.
She also made a commitment that
“any future Conservative Government would never take risks with the democratic process. They would take absolutely no risks with the integrity or comprehensiveness of the register or with its accuracy.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 108-109.]
The then Lib Dem spokesperson, the former Member for Cambridge, David Howarth, said:
“I do not think that anybody was suggesting that the timetable be artificially shortened, or that any risk be taken with the comprehensiveness of the register.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 112.]
I am afraid that some of this Government’s proposals renege on the cross-party support for the 2009 legislation, raising suspicions—fairly or unfairly—about the motives behind the shift in policy. Somehow, during that frenzied period of coalition building in 2010, the coalition agreement conjured up a specific commitment on individual voter registration, saying:
“We will reduce electoral fraud by speeding up the implementation of individual voter registration.”
That expediting of the process was new, having been in neither of the coalition parties’ manifestos.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend have any figures showing the number of prosecutions for electoral fraud? Have there been thousands, or tens of thousands, which would warrant such a speeding up of the process?
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of electoral fraud, which we must all do our best to fight. I think there were five or six prosecutions in the recent period, which is not at the same level as Northern Ireland, for example, before the changes made there.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
In view of the moderate and measured tone of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments thus far, does he regret telling The Guardian on 13 October 2010 that
“10 million people could lose the right to vote”,
an assertion that has been specifically rejected by the Electoral Commission’s chair, Jenny Watson?
Sadiq Khan
I am grateful for the tenor of that intervention. I stand by that figure, not because it is mine, but because it is the figure given by independent experts. I will come to that estimate and who gives it shortly, if the hon. Gentleman will indulge me.
Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I welcome the fact that the shadow Secretary of State is endeavouring to be so constructive; I think that we all want to work together to improve the system in the national interest. Does he agree that the present system is not fit for purpose in the 21st century, and that we should therefore make progress and not let the matter drift for too long?
Sadiq Khan
I would not disagree with a word of what the hon. Gentleman has just said; the system is not fit for purpose in the 21st century. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) has already mentioned electoral fraud, which is a live issue. We are also keen to ensure that the register is complete as well as accurate, and I will come to those matters shortly.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with electoral registers is that while some local authorities are very good at getting people on to the register, others get only about 80% of their local population? Does he also agree that the situation could get even worse as a result of cuts in local government spending?
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. To be fair to the Parliamentary Secretary, he recognised that fact when he gave evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, and acknowledged the concerns about constrained resources. Given that local authority resources are not ring-fenced, an obvious area in which to make cuts would be in the work of the electoral registration officer’s team, often at a time when that work is needed the most. There are examples of excellent practice around the country, but there are also examples of comparable constituencies with very low electoral registration levels.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman has talked about electoral fraud, but does he acknowledge the view expressed by the Metropolitan police service that there have been more than 13,000 incidents of financial fraud in which fake entries on the electoral register have been linked to the use of false documents for financial purposes?
Sadiq Khan
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The credit reference agencies and the police also remind us that it is important to have an accurate and complete register, because the register is often used for credit checks, as well as by the police and local authorities in the fight against fraud. We want the electoral register to be complete and accurate; if it is not, that can lead to all sorts of problems.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that an accurate and complete register is important not only for an effective and fully functioning democracy, but for ensuring that other parts of our Government are working well, including the selection of juries?
Sadiq Khan
This is my first chance to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) to her place in the House. She has had the most recent experience of fighting an election, and will be aware of the dangers of not having an accurate electoral register. She mentioned one of the important civil functions of the electoral register. She will be aware that the disadvantage for people of deciding not to be on the register is that they will not be able to serve on a jury, which can lead to the make-up of juries becoming skewed. Instead of being tried by one’s peers, a person can end up being tried only by those who are on the electoral register, rather than by a jury reflecting all those who are eligible to be on it.
The original justification for the proposals was not to save money, but that has now been put forward as a reason for speeding up the shift to individual electoral registration. This and the partisan nature of some of the Government’s other constitutional proposals, including the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, make some people suspicious of the motivation behind the Government’s proposals. Adding to the suspicion is the speeded-up timetable in the draft Bill, which is the meat of the motion before us. The draft Bill also proposes the removal of safeguards previously agreed by all the parties.
We are concerned about proposed changes to the civic duty involved in registering to vote. Under the household registration system, failure to comply with the request by an electoral registration officer to complete a registration form could result in a £1,000 fine. Despite few prosecutions, the threat of a fine has itself had a positive impact on registration levels, as has been confirmed by electoral registration officers around the country. The warning, written in a bold large font on the front of the letter from the electoral registration officer, served as a genuine motivation to respond. Our fear, which is shared by others, is that removing the threat of a fine will have a negative impact on registration levels.
Chris Ruane
My right hon. Friend has referred to local authorities that have successfully used the threat of the £1,000 fine to increase registration rates. May I point to the example of Rhyl West, where 2,500 people were registered? The council had a crackdown, which involved placing a warning on the registration form stating that people would be fined £1,000 if they did not fill it in. It explained that failure to fill in the form would result in the chief executive sending a letter to the non-registered person and turning the matter over to his legal department. The level of voter registration went up from 2,500 to 3,500 in one year as a result.
Sadiq Khan
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have seen evidence for what he mentions, and the local authority has confirmed that it increased registration rates from 2,500 to 3,500 because of the use of that threat and a rigorous approach. As my hon. Friend suggests, the removal of the fine will diminish the ability of electoral registration officers to do their job effectively, risking damaging consequences for our democracy and society. Although the penalty for not fulfilling the current legal duty is not often imposed, it is not without effect, as has been said. It contributes to a general sense that registering to vote is a civic duty—a responsibility—and not merely an individual right or a lifestyle choice.
The Parliamentary Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister have both declared from the Dispatch Box that the threat of the £1,000 fine is not being removed, since under their new proposals the offence of failing to respond remains for a household canvass. However, the House needs to understand the proposed changes in detail. There will indeed continue to be a form for the head of the household to complete, which is called a “household enquiry form” or HEF, and a £1,000 fine will remain for failing to comply with the request of the electoral registration officer to complete that form. Whereas completing the household registration form as it stands currently leads to those listed being registered to vote by the local authority on the processing of the form, under the new system the HEF is simply a way of capturing data on who might be eligible to vote in a property. That data will then be used by the local authority to follow up each of the named individuals with a personal approach containing a voter registration form. However, there is no legal duty to comply with a local authority request to complete an individual registration form and there is no threat of a £1,000 fine for not responding. We believe that that is a dangerous anomaly in the proposed legislation, which we fear could have a damaging effect on registration levels.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that although some people purposely do not want to be on the register, large numbers might be excluded from it because they have not been helped? I am thinking particularly of those with learning disabilities. Often, those who might be helping people with learning difficulties have a strange view about whether they should be allowed to vote. It is crucial that everyone in our society be enfranchised and that no one is ruled out because they are not given the support that they should receive to ensure that they are properly registered.
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend makes her point far better than I would have made it. She will be aware of the representations made by Scope and others. There could be confusion at an early stage when somebody completing the household form assumes, as in the past, that they are automatically on the register, without realising that the individual form they receive also needs to be completed. If we take into account the fact that many people have learning difficulties, that for others English is not their first language and that that these changes are being contemplated at a time when the register arguably needs to be at its most accurate, the position becomes very worrying—even more so if we reflect on the diminution of resources to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) referred.
Sadiq Khan
I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands his own position. The Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 was quite clear, as some Conservative Members have said. We believe in individual voter registration. What we do not agree with is having an incomplete or inaccurate register, and some of the currently proposed changes could lead to just that.
The absence of the threat of a fine also undermines the data-matching pilots launched recently, which we also welcome. We support attempts to discover the names of those who are not on the register by using other datasets held by the public sector, but the same obstacle occurs—those individuals will at most receive a personalised approach by the local authorities to register to vote but there will be no legal ramifications if they fail to comply with the local authority request. The Minister has previously said at the Dispatch Box words to the effect that he did not want there to be a threat of criminal conviction for failure to respond to a registration form from an electoral registration officer. Let me address that point. We are open to discussion of whether a system of fixed penalty notices for those who fail to complete their registration form might be more appropriate. The Electoral Commission is also in favour of a system of civil penalties as well as a range of incentives to encourage registration. The Minister will be aware that in Northern Ireland, which already has individual electoral registration, the offence for failing to respond to a request from an electoral registration officer has been maintained. Either way, there needs to be some kind of motivation, backed up with the threat of a sanction, if we are to keep registration levels high.
The implications of the coalition Government’s proposals concern us. Although they might lead to a more accurate electoral register in the sense that people who should not be on it will not be on it, they are also likely to lead to a considerably less comprehensive electoral roll. Recent research by the Electoral Commission shows that up to 8.5 million eligible voters currently are not registered to vote—5 million more than previously thought—and it has warned of a risk of a slump in registration levels from more than 90% to 65%. That equates to more than 10 million eligible voters who should be on the register not being on it.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The issue here is the correlation between the likelihood of a person’s registering on the electoral register and their being in the private rented sector, is it not? The rapid growth of private rented accommodation places people at the highest risk of not having the information necessary to be on the register. Would my right hon. Friend support discussion with the Government about how resources could be directed particularly towards the local authorities with the largest private rented sectors to help to target that problem?
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend is right to make that point and her view is shared not only by those who represent areas such as those she has mentioned but by the Association of Electoral Administrators, which believes there could be a 10% to 15% drop in suburban areas and a drop of up to 35% in the areas she has mentioned. The Minister said some very encouraging words when he gave evidence to the Select Committee and I look forward to hearing what he says in his response about resources and how he can target the finite resources he has on the areas that need them the most. Experts are as concerned as my hon. Friend that young people, students and people with learning disabilities and other forms of disability, as well as those living in areas of high social deprivation, are less likely to be registered. Some of those groups are already the most marginalised in society.
Many of us will have experienced examples of stretched electoral registration officers and limited resources, and there is a real concern about the impact of cuts to local authorities and budget pressures on the Electoral Commission at a time when they are needed the most. Those concerns are compounded by the fact that the 2015 boundary change enshrined in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 will take place on the new register composed of individual registrations. Although the draft legislation contains a safeguard—an effort to ensure the 2015 general election is not undermined by a significant decline in registered electors—which we welcome, there is no such safeguard for the boundary review, which will take place later in the same year. Given that the general election and the boundary review are due to take place in 2015, it seems odd to choose 2014-15 as the period for introducing individual electoral registration. It would make more sense to begin the process later or at least to extend the period of its implementation. Alternatively, registration under the current system could be carried forward for the boundary review, as is proposed for the 2015 general election. None of those options should cost any more than the Government’s current plans.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
It is the Government’s and indeed Parliament’s intention to equalise the size of parliamentary constituencies. Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that if the changes to those electorates as a result of individual voter registration were, even entirely properly, to be in any way unequal across different locations, that could result in the creation of unequal constituencies and in the Government’s failing to meet that objective?
Sadiq Khan
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point. In seats where there is a large number of students there could be a bigger slump than in areas where there is a large number of owner-occupiers. There could be a second major boundary change in five years, if there is a big slump in those on the register. Bearing in mind that the register is used to determine boundaries, the changes could lead to some of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman alluded to. If the formation of new boundaries goes ahead, with 10 million missing voters—not my figures but those of independent experts—it risks another substantial upheaval of parliamentary constituency boundaries to deal with that large loss of voters.
We should not forget that the electoral roll is not used simply for election purposes and for drawing boundaries; the register also performs an important civil function.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The shadow Minister was making a point about the impact of the changes on the next boundary review. Has he been able to estimate the consequences of under-registration on this side of the water? The measures will not apply to Northern Ireland, which has already taken its hit and is recovering, but they could lead to an increased number of seats being allocated to Northern Ireland under the constituency formula, in turn inflating the size of the Assembly, which is based on parliamentary constituencies.
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Members laughed during his intervention, but he is right to remind us indirectly of the formula by which seats are divided up. I am sure that when the Minister responds he will address the hon. Gentleman’s point, because an unintended consequence of reducing the number of voters is that the formula may lead to the changes he mentioned.
It will be more difficult for people who are absent from the roll to get credit checks, undermining their ability to apply for loans or mortgages, and it will be more difficult for those trying to prevent money laundering to check identities. The lists from which juries are drawn would be compromised. One of the fundamentals of our justice system—that defendants should be subject to trial by their peers—would be threatened. If individuals are given the right to opt out of registering to vote, by implication they could opt out of jury service, which currently is rightly deemed a civic duty.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
On the point about people being denied a loan or a mortgage if they are not on the electoral register as a result of the changes, is not the simple answer that they can register? The changes would not prevent anybody from getting a mortgage, but they will prevent people from getting a mortgage illegally.
Sadiq Khan
That is one of the benefits of an accurate and complete register, but the changes could lead to debtors, or the police or councils, not being able to chase people because they are not on the register. Council tax benefit and housing benefit fraud is often caught when people are seen on the register. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is individual choice and that consequences flow from that, but he fails to recognise the civil functions and the benefits to society of a complete and accurate register.
The electoral register is used by local authorities, and sometimes Departments, to help them in their duties related to security, law enforcement and crime prevention—for example, checking entitlement to council tax discount or housing benefit. The register is also used to ensure that political parties and candidates can contact electors to try to persuade them to vote or—dare I say it—to get involved in party politics. The Government’s current proposals could lead to a number of unintended consequences that no one wants to materialise.
The concerns are not just coming from the Opposition; the Electoral Reform Society is unhappy that registration is simply a matter of take it or leave it for individuals. The cross-party Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has produced an excellent report, for which I thank the Committee, that calls for it to be an offence to fail to complete a voter registration form, although perhaps only for a period of time during the transition. Like the Electoral Commission, the Committee has rightly called for a full household canvass in 2014, and echoes our concerns about the 2015 boundary changes. We welcome some of the Committee’s other main recommendations.
We recognise that there is a problem with the current electoral register, both of accuracy and completeness, and I genuinely look forward to working with the Government to safeguard the integrity of our electoral system and to improve registration levels in the move to individual voter registration. I hope the motion will be debated in a spirit of consensus and that it will be supported on both sides of the House.