Oral Answers to Questions

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I do not think that there is anything à la carte about the White Paper and the draft Bill and the scrutiny to which they are being subjected by a Joint Committee. Indeed, I do not think that there is anything à la carte or arbitrary left in a debate that has been raging for more than 100 years. I think that it would be a big step forward for democracy if we were finally to secure elections to a Chamber which, let us remember, makes the laws of this land, but is as yet not directly legitimate and accountable, through the ballot box, to the people of this country.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister for some clarity on his party’s views on House of Lords reform? If he is able in this Parliament to get his proposals through for a second Chamber that is 80% elected with peers serving one term of 15 years, will his party still want in a future Parliament to remove the remaining 20% of appointed peers and bishops so that we have a fully elected second Chamber?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I and my party start from the simple principled point that, in common with many other bicameral systems around the world, it is sensible to have both Chambers directly legitimised by—

[Sadiq Khan]

Fully?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Yes, of course fully; I support a fully elected second Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman’s party achieved precisely 0% of election to the other Chamber. I modestly suggest that if we achieve 80%, that will be better than 0%.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My own view is reflected in the coalition agreement, where this issue is among a number of others on which the coalition parties make an explicit agreement to disagree. That is because of a philosophical difference. I believe the state should be cautious about seeking to use the tax system to encourage people to take what, at the end of the day, are very private and emotional decisions about whether or not they should get married.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker:

“we must do everything we can to avoid a great big split in the European Union…That’s bad for jobs and growth in this country.”

That is what the Deputy Prime Minister said before the European summit. We now have a great split. Does he think the Prime Minister was right to put party interest before national interest?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am not going to rake over the results of the summit. The crucial thing is what we do now as a country, and on that issue there is absolutely no difference between the Prime Minister and myself or the two coalition parties. We are totally committed to full engagement in the European Union. Why? Because, as some business leaders set out very clearly in a letter this morning in The Daily Telegraph, 3 million people’s jobs directly depend on our place in what remains the world’s largest borderless single market, in our European backyard.

[Sadiq Khan]

The Deputy Prime Minister cannot answer a simple, straightforward question. I will give him a chance again: does he think the Prime Minister was right?

The Deputy Prime Minister has also said that the Prime Minister’s actions at the EU summit have left the UK in an “isolated position”. As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, the justification the Liberal Democrats give for propping up this Conservative-led Government is to act as a restraining influence. Well, they have failed on tuition fees, they have failed on legal aid, they have failed on the NHS, and now they have failed on Europe. Does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that the Prime Minister should re-enter negotiations and get a better deal for Britain? If he does, what is he doing about it?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to the reasons why this coalition Government were created—it was to clear up the mess that his party left behind. It is not easy, what we are doing, but it is right. At the beginning of this year, his party had nothing to say about the economy—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Questions to Ministers should be about the responsibility of office-holders for public policies. It is no good the hon. Gentleman nodding at me; his question was out of order, and it is about time that he learned that fact.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister has previously endorsed the long-held convention that issues of party funding should—as he has just said—be resolved by cross-party agreement when that is possible. He has told us that the Committee on Standards in Public Life will report shortly: in fact, it will report next week. Is he concerned about the objections from the chairman of the Conservative party to the £10,000 cap proposed in the draft report, and is he worried about the possibility of a situation similar to that which arose in 2007 when the Conservatives walked away from the opportunity to secure a cross-party agreement? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It would help if there were not so much noise from Whips on the Treasury Bench, so that the Chair could hear what was being said. Questions must be orderly. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer that which is orderly, and not that which is not.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

There will be no change at all to the civic duty—[Interruption.] I am quite honoured; that is the response that Opposition Members normally give to their former party leaders. If they listen to the answer, they might quieten down a bit. The civic duty remains exactly as it is. The proposal we have made is that the opt-out should be introduced. The Electoral Commission and others have raised concerns about the possible effect of such an opt-out and, as I confirmed in my earlier answer, I consider that concern sympathetically. That is the whole point of a consultation and we will wait to see the final outcome of the consultation, which ends at the end of this week, but I am minded to change the final legislation to reflect those concerns.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that people on both sides of the House share concerns about the electoral register, and that is why before the last general election there was cross-party support for an agreed timetable to move towards individual voter registration. He refers to the Electoral Commission, which is concerned not simply about the opt-out but about the speeded-up timetable and the removal of the fines for failing to register that, in its words, will lead from a register of 92% to one of about 65% in many parts of the country, meaning that millions of voters will fall off the register. That will lead not only to the skewing of future boundary changes but to skewed jury panels. Will he do what we did and work with all parties and the Select Committee to try to reach a proper resolution for the biggest change in the way that people are registered since the introduction of the universal franchise?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I think the right hon. Gentleman is simply plain wrong about certain facts. For instance, the offence in law to sanction those who do not pass on information as part of the registration process as households will remain. There will be no change to that at all. The civic duty will remain, too. The only thing we are considering, as I said earlier, is what the possible effects of an opt-out would be. We proposed the opt-out for a very good reason of principle. Under the existing system, registration takes place per household. If, however, we make that a duty on individuals, the question becomes whether it is right or wrong to give an individual the right to opt out. We have proposed that the opt-out should exist for individuals but others have raised concerns about it. I have listened sympathetically to those concerns and I have already said that I am minded to change the provisions in the final legislation. That seems to me to be an example of a Government who are prepared to listen and to hold a sincere consultation process, which will come to an end at the end of this week.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As I said, I think that it is unhealthy if any political party is over-reliant on particular organisations, individuals or vested interests for their financial survival, and that is why I hope that all of us—given that all political parties have been affected by this in one way or another—can work together after the Committee on Standards in Public Life has produced its recommendations so that we can find a solution.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister is right that all three major political parties entered the election with a commitment to reform the way in which political parties are funded. Will he confirm that he will follow convention and seek cross-party agreement on the way forward? Will he also outline the timeline he has in mind? There has obviously been a delay in relation to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. When does he think we will be able to start the discussions to resolve this issue?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I agree that we should always seek to deal with this issue on a cross-party basis where possible. However, I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a precise timetable because it is not within the gift of the Government to decide when Sir Christopher Kelly produces his committee’s report. As soon as he does, I hope that we can consider the recommendations together to see whether they provide a basis for cross-party discussions.

House of Lords Reform

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I believe in a fully elected House of Lords. It is right and proper in this day and age that both Houses of Parliament are directly accountable to the electorate. I would like to remind the House where Labour stood on Lords reform at the general election. Labour’s manifesto stated:

“We will ensure that the hereditary principle is removed from the House of Lords. Further democratic reform to create a fully elected Second Chamber will then be achieved in stages.”

The Deputy Prime Minister has often suggested that the best is sometimes the enemy of the good—he used the phrase today—as justification for the proposals contained in the draft Bill presented to Parliament, which falls short of his own party’s manifesto commitment, but I feel very passionately that there is a principle at stake, the fundamental principle of having a 100% elected upper House. That is the right and proper outcome, and one which will deliver the democratic system that the people of this country deserve.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the single most important function of our second Chamber is the revision and improvement of legislation? If we remove hundreds of people who are experts in their field and substitute them with hundreds of professional party politicians, what will make the latter better qualified to revise legislation in that Chamber than we amateurs are in this Chamber?

[Sadiq Khan]

I do not think that the second point necessarily makes the first point impossible; it is possible to have a second Chamber that is a revising Chamber and for all its Members to be elected. Of the 61 other bicameral Parliaments, none has an appointed upper Chamber. All of them are elected and seem to be doing a pretty decent job.

I am concerned that in other areas of constitutional change the Government have shown themselves willing to be less principled and more partisan. For example, we will see the number of MPs reduced from 650 to 600 at the next election, with no evidence for why we should lose 50 Members, which will simultaneously increase the power of the Executive. We have had 117 new unelected peers appointed to the House of Lords since last May, with more promised. Each peer costs £108,000 a year—we can all do the maths. There are now almost 830 unelected peers in our Parliament. We have seen boundaries re-fixed according to out-of-date electoral data that exclude 5 million eligible voters. We have seen Parliaments fixed at five-year terms, which was mentioned by neither coalition partner before the election, but is now mysteriously favoured by both. We have seen the political fudge of establishing a commission on a Bill of Rights, papering over the cracks between the coalition partners on human rights, and we have seen a failed referendum on the alternative vote. Those are some of the reasons why those of us who should be the natural allies of the Deputy Prime Minister’s plans to reform the House of Lords are suspicious of his plans and of him.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I, like the right hon. Gentleman, would like to see a 100% elected House of Lords, but if the choice were between 0% elected and 80% elected, given that so far we have waited 100 years, I would like us to make some progress and to get to 80% elected at least. In that situation, what would he choose?

[Sadiq Khan]

I would make sure that my leader, if he were the Deputy Prime Minister, negotiated properly for a fully elected second Chamber so that the problems that have been highlighted did not occur. What has happened—[Interruption.] I hear the chuntering both from Government Front Benchers and from Liberal Democrat Members, whose concerns and aspirations I will come to in a moment. We remember the sanctimony of Liberal Democrat Members when we were in government. I will talk about the progress that has been made over the past 13 years, but I accept that there was not enough.

We have also heard that 100 years is too long to wait for those who sit in the Lords to be elected, and those of us who want a fully elected second Chamber understand the wish to proceed sooner rather than later, but there are many issues that the Deputy Prime Minister has not addressed in the draft Bill or in the White Paper, and with the best will in the world it is simply unrealistic to expect the Joint Committee to have resolved them by February, as he wants it to.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

If the right hon. Gentleman is in favour only of 100% election as a matter of great principle, why when the House last determined the matter in 2007 did he vote for all the elected options that were on offer?

[Sadiq Khan]

The hon. Gentleman might not recall, but in 2003 this Chamber rejected all seven options, so it was important to ensure that some proposals went through. They went through, and both the party that he is now in coalition with and our party had in their manifestos a promise of a 100% elected second Chamber. We are not in government; the Liberal Democrats are.

The genuine obstacles and difficulties that remain require solutions, but they are not limited to the two areas to which the Deputy Prime Minister referred. First, we must identify exactly what we want a reformed House of Lords to do. My view, and I agree with some of the interventions from Government Members, is that it should continue as a revising Chamber that seeks to finesse legislation and, yes, on occasions, to act as a check on this House. We might not like it, and when in government we might all prefer to push our legislation through without any opposition from the second Chamber, but its role is an important check on this House and on the Executive, and that is right and proper and part of a healthy democracy. Too few checks are bad for all of us, and it is important that we preserve the balance.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

I am having some difficulty following the right hon. Gentleman’s logic, but perhaps he will help me in this respect. Is he saying that he is so committed to a 100% elected House of Lords that he would vote against an 80% elected House of Lords?

[Sadiq Khan]

What we have before us is a draft Bill, but we have also a very good Joint Committee, and I look forward to it doing the work that is required, within a sensible time scale, to come back with a Bill that we can all accept with cross-party consensus.

[Mr Gray]

May I invite the shadow Minister to rise from the short grass and the detail of exactly what is going to happen and, for a second, before he moves on to the detail of his speech, to address a fundamental question? Which aspect of the work of the House of Lords, as currently constituted, does he dislike or think unsatisfactory? If he can point to some part of the work of the House of Lords that is wrong, will he explain how it would be improved by electing 100% of its Members?

[Sadiq Khan]

The hon. Gentleman heard the speech from the Deputy Prime Minister, who gave a number of examples whereby the other Chamber—[Interruption.] I will give the hon. Gentleman an example. Is it right that we have 828 Members in the other place, all of whom, except for the 92 who by good fortune of their DNA have to go through elections, are not elected? That is not acceptable in a modern democracy.

There are those who have, I accept, legitimate concerns that a directly elected upper Chamber might seek to assert its newly found democratic mandate by facing down the Commons, and it is critical that the Joint Committee addresses that issue. After all, the primacy of this House must remain. It currently rests on two principles, the first of which is legislative. The Parliament Acts removed the powers of the Lords over money Bills and empowered the Commons to override the Lords on non-money Bills. The second principle underpinning the primacy of the Commons is drawn from the elected nature of its Members, so if we move to a directly elected upper Chamber it is not unreasonable for some to ask whether this House faces a threat to its primacy.

[Graham Stringer]

I will try to have another go at the point I made to the Deputy Prime Minister. In today’s edition of The Times, the previous leader of the Liberal Democrats, Paddy Ashdown, says that the newly reformed House of Lords—the Senate—would be able to stop this House doing what it wanted on a manifesto commitment. I was completely against the poll tax, but it was in the Conservatives’ 1987 manifesto. The Liberal Democrats want more power to go to the other place. How would my right hon. Friend guarantee the primacy of this House on non-legislative matters?

[Sadiq Khan]

There are big questions about the powers and functions of the second Chamber, and my hon. Friend has given one example of the anomalies that arise. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) gave another example of the issues that those of us who are in favour of a 100% elected second Chamber need to address if we are going to win the argument not only in this House but in the other Chamber. That is why a simultaneous debate on powers, conventions and the relationships between the two Houses is absolutely fundamental if we are to get the reform right so that it delivers the bicameral system that serves our democratic needs effectively. Form and function go together, and I am afraid that there is scant evidence that that is recognised in the draft Bill and in the White Paper.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman is a reformer within his party and has a good political tradition, and the newly elected Labour leader has a similar view on this issue. Will he therefore be very clear to the House that he supports, and the Labour party supports, a bicameral Parliament with primacy in this Chamber and an elected second House, and that during this Parliament Labour will work with the Government to achieve that so that we can have elections in 2015?

[Sadiq Khan]

The right hon. Gentleman may not have heard everything I have said—it has not been that great so far—but I think I highlighted in the first 30 seconds the Labour party’s policy, and my views, on this issue. He can take it from us that we will do business with those who keep promises and whom we can be sure have a real commitment to a properly elected second Chamber.

It is obvious that many of the conventions that have stood us in good stead over decades are becoming increasingly defunct and will not serve us at all should reform proceed as planned. For example, the convention whereby the Lords will not continue to oppose legislation based on manifesto commitments for which there is a mandate faces a new test under the coalition given that it is not clear what can be considered its manifesto. Is it each party’s manifesto or the coalition agreement, which the electorate did not vote on? We will need to ensure that the rules and regulations that allow a reformed upper Chamber to continue to revise and scrutinise are in place, while continuing to recognise the role of the Commons. The second Chamber must continue as a revising Chamber, not a rival Chamber.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

Given the right hon. Gentleman’s strong commitment to honouring manifesto commitments, will his party honour its own manifesto commitment to insist on a referendum on any Bill on an elected House of Lords?

[Sadiq Khan]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good intervention. It is important that the Joint Committee respects party policy and manifestos, and I hope that it will do so in its recommendations.

The draft Bill does not adequately address these issues. Clause 2 simply states that nothing in the Bill

“affects the primacy of the House of Commons”.

That is inadequate and ignores work done on rules and conventions by previous Committees, including the Joint Committee on Conventions chaired by Lord Cunningham of Felling. The new Joint Committee will need to recognise this fact and seek to open up the issue of powers and conventions; otherwise, the reform process runs the risk of being fatally flawed.

Another area of concern is the length of term of those elected to a newly reformed upper Chamber. Increasing the democratic accountability of the Lords has to be one of our key objectives, but I am unclear how this will be best served through single 15-year terms for those elected. What do we do in a situation where some less diligent individuals are elected and recognise, almost straight away, first, that the next 15 years are now sorted and, secondly, that they do not need to worry about what the electorate believe or want because they will never need to face them again at the ballot box? Is this what we want in our second Chamber?

We also face the tricky constitutional issue of the future of the bishops. I recognise that we have an established Church and that a move to a fully elected upper Chamber would not accommodate our current system. Some have argued that if we allow the bishops to stay in the reformed second Chamber, we should allow representatives of other major religions to have seats. However, there are major practical difficulties, not least the fact that some religions do not have such obvious hierarchical structures as others, so it is unclear who would be their representatives—let alone whether it is right for organised religion to play such a central part in our political system. It is right and proper that this House and the Joint Committee debate such issues if we are to get reform of the second Chamber right.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend is making a very good speech. At the beginning, I was a little concerned that those of us who have consistently, even when we have voted tactically to frustrate some of the motions—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Yes, Members on both sides of the House have done that. Some of us resent the suggestion that we are anti-democratic. Those of us who believe in the primacy of this House want either the abolition of that place or a very weak upper House. That is the democratic position and it is due some respect from both Front Benches.

[Sadiq Khan]

My hon. Friend makes his point very well.

Another area that the Joint Committee will have to examine is the transition. What will happen to the existing Members of the House of Lords? One option is to allow them to continue until they choose to leave by their own volition or die. Even the option of a phased move over time leaves the question of which Members to keep and which to ask to leave. That would not be easy to manage and would not be cheap.

[Mr Field]

Is there not a precedent from what happened in 1999, when the hereditary peers whittled down their own number from 650 to 92? Will the shadow Secretary of State and his party support a similar situation if there is any sense of frustration from this Bill in the years to come, whereby the massively over-bloated House of Lords is reduced from 800 or so Members to 300, allowing each group, including the political parties and the Cross Benchers, to choose their Members on a pro rata basis? Might that not be an important poisoned pill to ensure that we get reform with some speed and alacrity?

[Sadiq Khan]

It is very unusual for me to be fair to the Deputy Prime Minister, but he did include that very option in the White Paper. The Joint Committee will have to look into that before a Bill is finally published in February, as the Government hope.

We are also faced with the cost. Each peer, as I have said, costs £108,000 a year. The 117 new peers who have already been announced will cost £63 million over this Parliament. A transition that involves a 15-year phasing out of existing peers would therefore result in a substantial cost to the taxpayer. Other areas that need resolution are the size of the second Chamber, the impact of early elections, the electoral system to be used, and the need for a referendum for such a big constitutional change.

Between 1997 and 2010 a number of parliamentarians, including some very good ones, stood where the Deputy Prime Minister just made his speech from and argued for reform of the House of Lords. During that time, we made some progress in reforming the House of Lords. We removed 90% of the hereditary peers, created the post of elected Lord Speaker, separated our judiciary from the Lords by creating our first ever Supreme Court, and created people’s peers. We clearly did not go as far as we would have liked. However, as I am sure has happened and will happen to the Deputy Prime Minister, we encountered opposition to our proposals at every turn, most tellingly from his new political bedfellows. The Conservatives opposed our attempts to remove the hereditary peers from the Lords, most recently in the passage of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. They undermined our attempts to reach a cross-party consensus on Lords reform throughout our 13 years in government. The irony is that this Government are embarking on Lords reform at a time when citizens up and down the country are more preoccupied with fears about job losses, their pensions and cuts to public services. They expect us to prioritise those bread and butter issues as well.

One great parliamentarian who stood where the Deputy Prime Minister just stood and argued for major change to the House of Lords was Robin Cook. When I look at the draft Bill and the White Paper presented by the Deputy Prime Minister, and when I think of the task facing the Joint Committee, I think of the words of Robin Cook on the evening in 2003 when the House of Commons rejected all seven options for reform that had been presented by another Joint Committee:

“We should go home and sleep on this interesting position. That is the most sensible thing that anyone can say in the circumstances.”

He went on to say that

“the next stage in the process is for the Joint Committee to consider the votes in both Houses. Heaven help the members of the Committee, because they will need it.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 243.]

Reflecting on those comments, I sincerely wish the members of the Joint Committee and the Deputy Prime Minister the best of luck in the challenge ahead.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am obviously very keen to hear from the hon. Gentleman any specific reservations he has about how the combination of polls operated, but the provisional feedback seems to be that, despite some very dire warnings about the combination of polls not only in Northern Ireland but elsewhere, on the whole it was conducted very successfully indeed.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister will know that plans for police commissioners are a pretty major change in the way we do things, with new electoral boundaries and a new post. I will not go into the substance of the disagreement between the two sides about police commissioners, but on a procedural point the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned his discussions with the Electoral Commission. How soon in advance of the elections, which are now less than a year away, will we see the rules on spending limits, on fundraising transparency and on how the elections are held? He will be aware that all parties need to have time to select candidates throughout the country.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman —unusually—makes a fair point. We do need to get these rules into place in good time, and we will be working with the Electoral Commission at all levels to make sure that the rules are available to everybody who wants to participate in these elections in good time so that they can be held in the proper way.

House of Lords Reform (Draft Bill)

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Government’s plans to reform the other place.

At the last general election, each major party committed to a democratically elected second Chamber. The coalition agreement set out very clearly the Government’s intention to deliver that, but the roots of these changes can be traced back much further. A century ago, the Government, led by Herbert Asquith, promised to create

“a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis.”

There has been progress in the intervening years—the majority of hereditary peers have gone, and the other place is now predominantly made up of life peers. We should see ourselves as completing that work.

People have a right to choose their representatives. That is the most basic feature of a modem democracy. Our second Chamber, which is known for its wisdom and expertise, is none the less undermined by the fact it is not directly accountable to the British people. I am therefore publishing a draft Bill today, and an accompanying White Paper, which set out proposals for reform.

In the programme for government, we undertook to

“establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation.”

I chair that cross-party Committee, which reached agreement on many of the most important issues—not on all of them, but good progress was made—and those deliberations have greatly shaped the proposals that are being published today. I should like to pay tribute to all members of the Committee, particularly Opposition Members, who engaged with us in an open and collaborative fashion. Let me also thank those individuals whose past work on Lords reform has laid the foundations for what we are doing today, particularly the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and the right hon. and noble Lord Wakeham. Rather than start anew, the Government have benefited from their previous endeavours. Today’s proposals represent a genuine, collective effort over time.

The draft Bill and White Paper will now be scrutinised by a Joint Committee composed of 13 peers and 13 Members of this House. The Committee will report early next year, and a Government Bill will then be introduced.

The Prime Minister and I are clear that we want the first elections to the reformed upper Chamber to take place in 2015. However, although we know what we want to achieve, we are open minded about how we get there. Clearly, our fixed goal is greater democratic legitimacy for the other place, but we will be pragmatic in order to achieve that. We therefore propose an upper House made up of 300 members, each eligible for a single term of three Parliaments. Three hundred is the number that we judge to be right, but this is an art and not a science. In the vast majority of bicameral systems, the second Chamber is significantly smaller. That arrangement helps to maintain a clear distinction between the two Houses. We are confident that 300 full-time Members can cover the work comfortably. We are, however, open to alternative views on that.

The coalition agreement committed the Government to produce proposals for

“a wholly or mainly elected chamber.”

That debate is reflected in what we are publishing today. The Bill makes provision for 80% of Members to be elected, with the remaining 20% to be appointed independently. The 60 appointed Members would sit as Cross Benchers, not as representatives of political parties, and in addition bishops of the Church of England would continue to sit in the other place, but would be reduced in number from 26 to 12. The White Paper includes the case for a 100% elected House of Lords. The 80:20 split is the more complicated option, and so has been put into the draft Bill in order to illustrate it in legislative terms. The 100% option would be easy to substitute into the draft Bill should that be where we end up.

There are people on both sides of the House who support a fully elected Chamber, believing that an elected House of Lords should be just that. Others, again on both sides, take a different view, and support having a non-elected component in order to retain an element of non-party expertise, as well as to keep greater distinction between the two Houses. Personally, I have always supported a 100% elected House of Lords, but the key thing is not to make the best the enemy of the good. That approach has stymied Lords reform for far too long. After all, 80% is a whole lot better than 0%.

Elections to the new reformed House will be staggered: at each general election a third of Members will be elected, or a combination of elected and appointed. That is to prevent the other place from becoming a mirror image of this House. In the Bill we set out how those elections could be conducted using the single transferable vote. The coalition agreement specifies only that the system must be proportional, and what is most important is that it is different from whatever we use in the Commons. That is to ensure that the two Chambers have distinct mandates; one should not seek to emulate the other.

STV allows for that, and would also give the upper Chamber greater independence from party control. Votes are cast for individuals rather than parties, putting the emphasis on the expertise and experience that candidates offer, rather than the colour of the rosette they wear. We want to preserve the independence of spirit that has long differentiated that House from this one. I know that some Members prefer a party list system, including Opposition members of the cross-party Committee I chaired. We are willing to have this debate, and have not ruled out a list-based system in the White Paper.

The Commons will retain ultimate say over legislation through the Parliament Acts, and will continue to have a decisive right over the vote of supply. In order for a Government to remain in office they will still need to secure the confidence of MPs. The other place will continue to be a revising Chamber, providing scrutiny and expertise. Its size, electoral cycle, voting system, and terms will all help to keep it distinct from the Commons and a place that remains one step removed from the day-to-day party politics that, quite rightly, animate this House. What will be different is that our second Chamber will finally have a democratic mandate, and will be much more accountable as a result.

Clearly, the transition must be carefully managed. We propose to phase in the reform over three electoral cycles. In 2015 a third of Members will be elected, or a combination of elected and appointed. The number of sitting peers will be reduced by a third, although we are not prescribing the process for that; it will be up to the parties in the other place to decide. In 2020, a further third will come in under the new system, and then again in 2025. There are other ways of staging the transition, however, and the White Paper sets out two of them.

To conclude, history teaches us that completing the unfinished business of Lords reform is not without challenges. Our proposals are careful and balanced. They represent evolution, not revolution, and are a typically British change. I hope that Members from both sides of the House and the other place will help us to get the proposals right. The Government are ready to listen and are prepared to adapt, but we are determined, in the end, to act. I commend this statement to the House.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for advance sight of the statement, and for how he chaired the working group—squaring the views of Lord Strathclyde with those of the rest of us was nothing short of a master class in conflict resolution. I am also pleased to see the Prime Minister here supporting the Deputy Prime Minister. The latter must feel like the manager of West Ham seeing his chairman after the final whistle on Saturday. I hope he has a better outcome than the chairman—I mean the manager—of West Ham had on Saturday.

I agree that our politics and constitution are in need of reform. Like the Deputy Prime Minister’s party, Labour had a manifesto commitment to create a fully elected second Chamber. Let us be frank: Lords reform is not near the top of any of our constituents’ priorities. They are more interested—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am grateful for that support; I am not sure whether the Deputy Prime Minister is. Our constituents are more interested in their schools and hospitals, and whether they will have a job at the end of the year. This is about how we write the laws that affect us, including laws on schools and hospitals, and who writes those laws, so if we are doing it, we have to get it right.

The present situation is unsustainable. The Lords has more than 800 Members, and the Prime Minister intends to pack in another 200, at great expense to the taxpayer—117 have already been added since May 2010—while at the same time cutting the number of elected Members in this House. More unelected, fewer elected—and he calls it progress. I fear that the Deputy Prime Minister will soon realise that the Tories are the real obstacle to reform, just as they were when we were in power.

It is important that we get the details right. The Deputy Prime Minister says that he supports a fully elected second Chamber, yet he is unveiling a Bill today that leaves at least 20% appointed, plus bishops, plus Ministers appointed by the Prime Minister. The Joint Committee will have a built-in Government majority, so the idea of it overturning anything of substance in the Bill by next year is unrealistic. These proposals risk being a dog’s dinner, with nobody happy at the outcome— not even the Lib Dem activists, whom the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to appease. After 12 months in office, he has nothing new to say on Lords reform, but is simply putting out proposals that kick the issue into the long grass.

Before the Deputy Prime Minister delegates responsibility for the Bill to the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is the Minister responsible for political and constitutional reform, and to Lord Strathclyde, can he answer these 11 questions on the proposals?

Bearing in mind that the country comprehensively rejected the AV system two weeks ago, is the Deputy Prime Minister seriously suggesting that he should impose a system of proportional representation for the second Chamber without consulting the electorate? What powers does he want a reformed House of Lords to have? How will he deal with the conventions that currently govern the relationship between the two Chambers? Does he believe that the relationship should be codified? What role does he envisage for the bishops in the second Chamber, and why 12? Can he set out the cost of a reformed second Chamber? If it is possible that no peers would be forced to leave until 2025, what does he predict the maximum size and cost of the second Chamber will be in the interim? Will he confirm that he wants reform on the statute book by the next election? Will he confirm whether he intends to use the Parliament Acts to force the proposals through? Will he also confirm whether coalition MPs and peers will be whipped to vote for the Bill when it comes out of the Joint Committee? Finally, will he allow a debate on his Bill in Government time before the summer recess?

The Deputy Prime Minister has confirmed by the publication of this Bill just how irrelevant he and his party are in the coalition Government. I am afraid that the Bill, the White Paper and the whole process are a huge anticlimax.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Not only did the right hon. Gentleman fluff the lines at the beginning, he also failed to rise to the occasion. This is an occasion when, for once, he could put aside his sour observations and try to work across parties, as we have in the cross-party Committee, to make some progress not only, I should remind Opposition Members, on something that was in their manifesto—by the way, so was AV, but a fat lot of good that did us all—but on something that we have been discussing as a country for almost 100 years. If that is not long enough, I do not know what is.

Before I turn to some of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, let me address the vital issue, which he has raised once again, about a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber. It would be so much easier to take the right hon. Gentleman’s admonitions in favour of 100% seriously if, during the 13 years under Labour, more had been delivered than 0%. Given that the country has been debating House of Lords reform for more than a century and that all three parties made a manifesto commitment on this issue last year, it is crucial not to make the best the enemy of the good. We have set out in the Bill how an 80:20 split would work, and we have maintained the option in the White Paper of moving to 100% if that is what people want. That is exactly what we will submit to the Joint Committee.

Turning to the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, the cost is almost impossible to estimate at this stage, without knowing precisely what the final composition of the House of Lords will be or the method of transition from where we are now to where we want to be in 2025. In the Bill, we have proposed a staged election—or election and appointment—by thirds in 2015, 2020 and 2025, alongside a staged reduction, commensurate with that, from the House of Lords as it is at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I do not agree with my hon. Friend, for the simple reason that a principle is at stake—that those who make the laws of the land should be accountable, as is common to bicameral systems across the democratic world, to the people who have to abide by those laws. That is a simple principle. As he knows, we are committed by the coalition agreement to introducing legislation for a wholly or mainly elected House of Lords. As I said, we shall publish a Bill shortly, and it will then be subject to extensive scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister has just confirmed what he said at the last Deputy Prime Minister’s Questions, which is that he has not made up him mind whether the draft Bill will keep his promise to have a 100% fully elected second Chamber, or whether there will only be a partially elected one.

On another issue of timing, the Deputy Prime Minister has said that he will publish the draft Bill shortly. Before the general election he said that a Bill would be published within six to seven weeks of a new Parliament being formed, and the coalition agreement said that one would be published by December 2010. I know that he is a busy, hard-working Deputy Prime Minister, so when exactly can we expect to see this draft Bill, and what is the reason for the delay?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I profess to being a little surprised, given that the right hon. Gentleman sat in the cross-party Committee that I chair, and I seem to remember that our last meeting was shortly before Christmas. He may profess ignorance of this matter, but he knows very well that the Committee, which I think has been proceeding in a methodical, co-operative and cross-party manner to try to create a cross-party consensus, concluded its work only relatively recently. He attended the last meeting shortly before Christmas, and we are now doing the work in government, which is entirely reasonable, to present a draft Bill based on that Committee’s work—and as I said, we shall do that shortly.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I recall distinctly that we had this debate in the House in the first place. The boundary commissions set out clearly in evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that the reduction to 600 Members and the clearer hierarchy of rules would mean that there would be significant change across the country, except of course for the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar and one other Member, whose constituency boundaries will remain the same. Members were very clear about that at the beginning, so I do not think that that is a new piece of information.

Arguments have also been advanced that this extra bit of discretion would mean that parliamentary constituency boundaries would not need to cross county boundaries where the area is a little bit over or under the 10% band of tolerance, but the Government do not consider constituencies that cross local authority boundaries to be a problem in principle—certainly not for electors, who should be the focus of our concern. The 7.5% discretion rule would not solve the problem: it would just move the line somewhere else.

The Government’s proposal of allowing 5% on either side of the UK electoral quota has a clear rationale: it is the closest we can get to having fair and equally weighted votes for electors while still allowing local factors to be taken into account, using wards as the building blocks in most cases. We think that is the right judgment in principle and in practice. Our reasons for disagreeing with the amendments do not detract from the usefulness of this debate, which has been valuable, but we think that the principle of one vote, one value and having more equal-sized constituencies is right. The amendments compromise that principle and would cause practical problems for the review. That is why we oppose them.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

First, I point out that the Government decided that one hour should be set aside to discuss these amendments and that the Minister has taken up almost two thirds of that time. I do not criticise him, because he took many interventions, but it is a bit rich for him to accuse the House of Lords of filibustering. He should bear that in mind when we are considering constitutional Bills of this nature.

The amendments were moved by a Cross Bencher, Lord Pannick of Radlett, in the House of Lords, which is a revising Chamber, when he demolished the points that the Minister has raised this afternoon. The House needs to consider whether we are setting a precedent for how constitutional matters are taken forward—ignoring revisions made in the Lords that were moved by an expert Cross Bencher. I fear that the Minister has fallen into the trap of praying in aid the Lords, particularly Cross Benchers, when they agree with his points, but finding excuses for disagreeing with them when they disagree with him, let alone when they overturn a Commons decision by a considerable majority. For the avoidance of doubt, let me reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and I said on a number of occasions as the Bill went through the Commons, which was repeated by Opposition spokespeople in the other place: we agree with the principle of creating more equal-sized constituencies, but we have practical concerns about the way that the Bill seeks to pursue that reasonable objective.

Lord Pannick’s amendment would inject some common sense into the rigid mathematical formula in the Bill for redrawing boundaries. I remind the House that the original Bill proposed that there should be flexibility in the size of constituencies of 5% either side of the electoral quota or norm, so that constituencies could vary between 95% and 105% of the electoral quota. The Bill also accepts that there should be exceptions for Northern Ireland, for Orkney and Shetland and for the Western Isles.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my disappointment and that of my constituents that the Deputy Prime Minister has sought to make special cases for the Western Isles and the Isle of Wight but has ignored Cornwall completely? Does he agree that the 7.5% differential is the best and last chance that the people of Cornwall will have to protect their historic boundary?

[Sadiq Khan]

I agree with every word the hon. Lady has said. She has sat through many debates in the past few months without having the chance to speak in them. It is interesting that we are lectured regularly by the Deputy Prime Minister about principles but that he is willing to throw them in the bin when it suits his party political purpose.

In addition to the exception for the Western Isles and others, the Government are making a further exception for the Isle of Wight, so there will now be two seats with 55,000 voters—so much for one vote, one value. The Government have put aside their concerns about the knock-on consequences and about equality of seats where it suits them, so equality is not the only value or issue being considered. It is obvious that there have to be exceptions on equality for the Bill to be workable in practice.

Lord Pannick’s amendment 19, which was passed by a fair majority in the other House, represents a compromise. To give the amendment the justice it deserves, it is not just the average between the positions of the Government and the Opposition, but a genuine refinement of the measure. To paraphrase, it is fair, reasonable and workable. Having constituencies that can vary in size, in exceptional circumstances, between 92.5% and 107.5% of the norm allows sufficient flexibility to satisfy the concerns of many who think that the Government’s approach way too rigid. When a Bill of this constitutional significance has not had proper pre-legislative scrutiny, it is incumbent on the Government to pause and consider the criticisms made by all-party Select Committees of the Commons and the Lords.

The amendment was moved in the other place by one of the country’s leading lawyers. If we ignore it, that raises questions about the purpose of having Cross-Bench experts in the other place. It was passed by a significant majority, but the Government, rather than seeking to accommodate it, are trying to overturn it in the Commons by taking advantage of their huge majority. The amendment was passed by a significant majority in the Lords after 60 new Government peers had been placed there. That speaks volumes about the merits of the arguments behind it.

Reliance on a rigid mathematical formula could result in problems in parts of the country where there is a risk that unique geographical and historical circumstances will be disturbed and that the local legitimacy of constituencies will be undermined. That is not just our opinion; it is shared in many quarters.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sadiq Khan]

I want to make some progress.

Democratic Audit, a think-tank attached to the university of Liverpool, has argued that greater flexibility is needed in the system for a number of reasons. It would lead to far fewer county boundaries being crossed, a reduction in the number of wards being split, a lower chance of towns and villages being divided between constituencies and better community cohesion. Let me throw into the mix that such flexibility would also mean that the clarion calls from Cornwall for the preservation of parliamentary representation west of the Tamar would be satisfied—no doubt to the relief of those Members who represent the fiercely proud people of that part of the south-west.

I emphasise that the amendment is not partisan, so it ought to find favour on both sides of the House.

[Andrew George]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sadiq Khan]

I want to finish my contribution so that others can speak.

The wording in Lord Pannick’s amendment is designed to prevent exceptional circumstances from simply becoming the norm—a concern that the Minister has articulated—and the Opposition do not question Lord Pannick’s legal judgment. His amendment is deliberately drafted to allow the boundary commissions very narrow discretion to depart from the electoral norm by up to another 2.5% either way. They could do that only if they believed that two criteria were satisfied. First, further departure would have to be “necessary”—not reasonable or desirable, but necessary. Secondly, the departure would have to be necessary in order to address “special geographical considerations” or local ties of an “exceptionally compelling nature”.

Lord Pannick has already forcefully demolished the arguments that the Minister put forward in his lengthy contribution today. It is worth reminding the House that before Lord Pannick drafted the amendment, he met the Leader of the House of Lords, the Government spokesman on these matters Lord Wallace of Tankerness, the Minister himself, and the Bill team. He then sought to address constructively in his amendment the concerns they had raised with him. I urge Members on both sides of the House to recognise the inherent sense of realism that the amendment brings to the Bill and I hope that they will see fit to support it in the Division Lobby.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am grateful to Members who have taken part in debates on the Bill, in particular the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who sadly is not in his place, and members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, who have been forensic in their scrutiny.

The Bill’s reforms are an essential part of the Government’s drive to modernise Parliament. Currently, a Prime Minister can, effectively, call an election on a whim—a situation that my colleague and friend, the late Lord Holme of Cheltenham, once described as a race in which the Prime Minister is allowed to approach the track with his or her running shoes in one hand and the starting pistol in the other. Something as important as the timing of a general election must not be determined by the whims of Prime Ministers and the self-interest of political parties. I believe that all parties agree on that. The Bill proposes the introduction of fixed-term Parliaments, bringing a new stability to our political system and, crucially, ensuring that when Parliament does dissolve early, that is a matter for this House.

Debate on the Bill has been vigorous. That is why we allowed extra time in Committee. While we may not see eye to eye with colleagues on the Opposition Benches on every detail, throughout the debates there was broad agreement on what it seeks to achieve.

Let me turn briefly to some of the issues that have attracted most attention. First, on early Dissolution, the Bill provides that Parliament will be dissolved early only if at least two thirds of MPs vote for Dissolution or if a Government are unable to secure the confidence of the House of Commons within 14 days of a no-confidence vote—passed on a simple majority, exactly as is provided for right now.

Those arrangements are complementary. They are workable. Most importantly, they strengthen the power of Parliament to hold Government to account. We are proposing a new power for the House to vote for an early Dissolution, as well as, for the first time, giving legal effect to the existing procedures for a vote of no confidence. I ask Members to note that the Constitution Committee in the other place has endorsed those two mechanisms for triggering an early election.

The Government do not accept the concern that the new right to dissolve Parliament will undermine this House’s exclusive cognisance. Such an important constitutional innovation absolutely should be laid down in statute, but we are confident that the courts will continue to regard matters certified by the Speaker as relating to proceedings in Parliament, which are, in turn, protected by the Bill of Rights. I was delighted that the Constitution Committee—a Committee that includes distinguished parliamentarians and lawyers—agreed with the Government’s assessment of the Bill’s interaction with parliamentary privilege.

On the length of Parliaments, we have looked into the suggestion that four years is preferable to five. It is true that this is not an exact science. It is a question of judgment, but, all the arguments considered, we remain of the strong view that five years, the current maximum and more recently the norm, will encourage the stability and long-term perspective that British politics too often lacks.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Can the Deputy Prime Minister give us one example in which he or another leading member of the Liberal Democrats before May last year was in favour of a five-year fixed-term Parliament?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

We were in favour of fixed-term Parliaments above and beyond all else, and always accepted that the issue of whether it was four years or five years was a matter of judgment, as I said. Five years, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is the maximum term available to us already, and of the last five Parliaments three stretched to five years, including the last Parliament under a Labour Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

Things are desperate when the Whips have to arrange things to get most of the Liberal parliamentary party into the Chamber, but it is good to see two rows of Liberal MPs. The Deputy Prime Minister knows more about mutinies than I do, but I suspect that the situation tonight is similar to that of a football club chairman who says to his manager, “Your job is safe.” I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman’s continued contribution to debates about constitutional reform.

The Bill before us allows the Government to set in stone the date of the next general election as Thursday 7 May 2015. It also gives them time to foist a series of constitutional changes on to the country. They will reduce the size of the House of Commons by 50 MPs, redraw constituency boundaries and silence the voices of local residents through the removal of public inquiries. This Bill allows them the time to do that, and as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who is not in his place, said on Second Reading, it smacks of

“gerrymandering the constitution in favour of a particular coalition”.—[Official Report, 13 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 624.]

[Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to suggest that, by the Prime Minister giving up power and by making the votes of people in Corby equal to the votes of people in the Rhondda, we are gerrymandering in the Bill? That is an amazing use of language.

[Sadiq Khan]

That Bill is being discussed in the other place. It starts again at 3.30 tomorrow.

The hon. Lady should be interested in my next point, however, because the Bill before us also ties the hands of the Conservative party to the Liberal Democrats. With this Bill, their respective fates and identities become inseparable. Make no mistake: the Bill is not for the good of the country; it is for the good of the Ministers on the Treasury Bench. What compounds that outrageous piece of attempted constitutional fixing is the fact they are trying to ram it through at breakneck speed. That urgency is because Back Benchers from both coalition parties are having second thoughts about the issue, so party managers need to get them super-glued together quickly, with no way out.

Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have raised a number of concerns about its content and its scrutiny. I have no problem with the Conservative party being converts to fixed-term Parliaments.

[Mr Heath]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sadiq Khan]

No, I will not. Not to you.

The Liberal Democrats’ policy was for four-year fixed-term Parliaments, but unfortunately the coalition has hijacked a sensible and progressive idea, amended it for its own means and tried to rush through legislation preventing a proper, wide-ranging debate on an important —[Hon. Members: “Give way!”] I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has been in charge of timetabling the Bill, and if he had wanted to speak, he should have allowed more time for debate.

Once again, we will rely on the other place to inject a sense of fairness—

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the right hon. Gentleman had intended to take up the first two minutes of his speech himself, one might have understood his response. If he intends to let others come in, however, why does he not let the Minister have a word?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

The hon. Gentleman is very experienced and knows that that is not a point of order. It is entirely up to Mr Khan as to whom he decides to give way to. While I am on my feet, may I remind Members that there is supposed to be only one Member on their feet at any one time in the Chamber?

[Sadiq Khan]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the debate and congratulate him on his recent honour.

I want to be clear that the criticism of the speed with which the legislation is being pushed through comes not from us alone. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the Clerk of the House of Commons, Professor Robert Hazell of the constitution unit and other academic experts, and the House of Lords Constitution Committee have all criticised not only the Bill, but the way in which it is being rushed through without consideration for the consequences on our constitution, both intended and unintended.

May I deal with an important point at the outset? It has been said that the Bill needs to go through unchanged because it is part of the coalition agreement. The new politics means that we can forget about what people voted for, about manifestos and about the promises that were made before the election. The deal that was done means that the agreement that was reached after the election cannot be touched. However, the Bill no longer provides for a general election if 55% of hon. Members believe that one is needed, as was stated in the coalition agreement. The Deputy Prime Minister made an embarrassing U-turn on that issue, proving that the coalition agreement has no constitutional significance at all. I hope that the other place will pay heed to that.

Our major concern from the beginning has been that five years is simply too long for a fixed-term Parliament. We have argued throughout the scrutiny process for four-year terms. That not only compares well with other Parliaments, but provides a better fit with our current constitutional arrangements. Moreover, we have heard the concerns of our colleagues in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland about the short-term consequences of fixing Parliaments at five years. The potential clash with the Assembly elections in Wales and Northern Ireland and the parliamentary election in Scotland on 7 May 2015 shows a blatant disregard for those parts of the Union.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman is keen to ascribe motives that were not present in the decision to make it five years. Will he give some indication of the thinking of the previous Prime Minister in deciding that the Parliament that has just ended should last five years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

The right hon. Gentleman will accept that, like his party, we were in favour of fixed-term Parliaments and that, like his party, we thought four years was the appropriate length of time. In between the ballot boxes closing and Liberal Democrats reaching their ministerial cars, his party changed the figure to five years for the simple reason that it meant that it could gerrymander before the next general election.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the House how he voted on the Fixed Term Parliaments Bill introduced by my predecessor, David Howarth?

[Sadiq Khan]

The hon. Gentleman should explain why he has changed his mind in relation to his predecessor’s Bill. He will recall that there was insufficient time to allow the Bill introduced by his predecessor—a very good and honourable man—to receive proper debate in the House of Commons. The question that should be asked is why the hon. Gentleman has done a U-turn on that Bill. [Interruption.] The Whip, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), heckles me but if he wants to get to his feet, I am happy to take an intervention.

This sort of Westminster arrogance will not go down well in Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh. People in those places will remember the arrogant way in which the Deputy Prime Minister’s deputy, after a number of hours of debate on this issue on day one of the Committee, and after a number of Members had spoken, pulled from his pocket an option to allow devolved Assembly elections to be brought forward by up to six months in the event of their being scheduled at the same time as a general election. There was no consultation and no discussion with us or the devolved Administrations before that. We have heard how unhappy they are with this.

[Mr Harper]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sadiq Khan]

Of course I will give way.

[Mr Harper]

The right hon. Gentleman knows, as I made clear at the time, that I announced that option in this House first because I thought it proper for Parliament to hear it first. I then wrote to all the party leaders. During the process, I have kept him informed, have placed copies of the correspondence in the House of Commons and have updated the House. At all stages, I have kept this House informed, as is the proper process.

[Sadiq Khan]

I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to intervene again. Is it not right that a number of colleagues had taken part in the debate and an amendment had been moved, and that it was only towards the end of the evening that he pulled the option out of his pocket?

[Mr Harper]

I was very keen to do something that the previous Government did not do often: I listened to the debate and to the concerns raised by Members on both sides of the Committee, and then announced to the House what I thought might be a sensible move forward. As I said on Report, colleagues in the devolved Parliament and Assemblies have written back to me to say that they are less than overwhelmed by my proposals. That is why we did not move them on Report. That was a perfectly sensible way to conduct matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

The problem is that an amendment was moved, hon. Members took part in the debate, and then the Minister introduced the other option, yet gave us no chance to respond, because of the guillotining by those on the Government Front Bench.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Surely the point is that the Minister knew that information at the start of the debate, but he chose not to inform Members House at that stage.

[Sadiq Khan]

My hon. Friend makes the point well.

More recently, and more importantly for this House, our concerns about the length of the Parliament have been strengthened since the Bill was in Committee by the Lords Constitution Committee. In his short contribution, the Deputy Prime Minister cherry-picked parts of its report, but he missed out the most crucial bit. In the Constitution Committee’s view, five years is simply too long. Like us, it argues that four years is more appropriate. Its report challenged the Deputy Prime Minister’s assertions that the Government’s progress on constitutional and political reform, of which the Bill is a key component, will make Parliament more accountable to the people. The Constitution Committee argues that the provisions in the Bill to fix the length of Parliaments to five years would lead to less frequent elections and make the legislature less accountable, not more. Under a system of fixed five-year terms, there would have been four fewer elections since 1945.

I know the pressure that will be brought to bear on Government Members to support the Bill—a Bill that they do not believe in and that they have a problem with. However, when they come to decide whether to give it a Third Reading, they should remember the words of the Lords Constitution Committee, which said that a five-year term was

“inconsistent with the Government’s stated aim of making the legislature more accountable, inconsistent with existing constitutional practice and inconsistent with the practice of the devolved institutions and the clear majority of international legislatures”—

except in Rwanda. If the Bill goes through this House, the Opposition will be looking to the Lords to heed the advice of their own Constitution Committee and recognise that four years is a much more sensible length of time for a fixed-term Parliament.

Time is short, so I will not go into the other problems that we have with the Bill. However, what I will say, and for the second time in a number of months, is that I am optimistic and sincerely hopeful that the other place will inject some sanity into this Bill, through proper scrutiny. This Bill is rushed, self-serving and opportunistic. It is an affront to how we ought to go about amending and improving our constitution. We shall be voting against it being given a Third Reading.